In Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 745 v. Voitenko, the Superior Court addressed a dispute arising from a condo corporation’s statutory obligation to maintain common elements specifically, completing a reserve fund study waterproofing project and an owners’ refusal to permit access due to alleged disabilities and accommodation requests.
The Corporation’s reserve fund study called for building-wide balcony waterproofing to prevent water infiltration and long-term structural degradation. The Corporation started the work in 2021 and it was scheduled to be completed in the summer of in 2022.
On both occasions, the respondent unit owner refused access and imposed conditions that prevented the work from proceeding and, ultimately, bringing a Human Rights Complaint against the Corporation.
As a result, the Corporation was forced to demobilize contractors and bring court proceedings to compel access. By the time the concurrent Court Application and Human Rights Complaint were resolved, the condo-wide project had already concluded, meaning the Corporation would now have to remobilize contractors and equipment solely for this single unit.
The Court held that:
- The owner was out-of-time in bringing her complaint to the HRTO.
- The Corporation had a statutory duty under the Condominium Act, 1998 to maintain common elements.
- The owner could not prohibit or delay the work.
- The Corporation was entitled not only to access, but also to charge back the additional remobilization costs to the owner as common expenses, with lien rights.
The Court specifically found that the waterproofing could have been completed earlier at no extra cost to the owner, and that the additional expenses were a direct result of the owner’s refusal to permit access during the scheduled project.
Key Takeaways for Owners, Boards, and Managers
1. Owners Cannot Block Mandatory Maintenance
Condominium corporations are legally obligated to maintain common elements. Individual owners do not have the right to veto, delay, or condition that work where it is required for safety, integrity, and statutory compliance.
2. Refusal of Access Has Financial Consequences
This case confirms that when an owner prevents scheduled condo-wide work:
- The corporation can recover extra cost including contractor remobilization, equipment reinstallation, and project reactivation expense.
- These costs can be charged back as common expenses and enforced through lien rights
3. “Accommodation” Does Not Mean “Project Control”
While accommodation obligations exist, they do not override:
- Statutory maintenance duties
- Safety obligations
- Structural integrity requirements
- Engineering standards
Repeated refusals, conditions, or delays do not create a right to block work. The Court held that repeated denials of the same request does not create new legal rights or obligations or “re-start” the clock for alleged incidents giving rise to discrimination.
Practical Implications
For condo corporations and boards:
- Courts will enforce statutory maintenance right
- Access orders are available
- Chargebacks for remobilization costs are legally supportable
- Lien enforcement is permitted
For unit owners:
- You cannot prohibit required maintenance
- You cannot delay condo-wide projects without financial exposure
- You may be personally liable for significant project reactivation costs
