Gene Lewis
Vice President of Operations Duka Property Management Inc.
The Last Word
Understanding in a Changing World
I wondered how they came to such a recommendation with respect to the enforcement. While I only have the information that was reported in the news, I am guessing that the Manager felt that the Corporation would be on solid ground based on the rule. In our ever-changing world, this to me is where we need to be aware that a rule that might have been written years ago, may not be in sync with the current environment and the reality of the community. Further, in the hierarchy of governing documents, the Manager appears to have failed to consider that the Rules are subservient to Human Rights. What might have happened is that their existing rule defining a single-family, failed to recognize the definition was not current with what now constitutes a family/spousal relationship, particularly when viewed from the broader human rights issue. One can’t help but ask “How could you be so narrow minded?” 48
CV
As I tell Boards during preliminary meetings, it is Management’s job to ensure the enforcement of the rules of the Corporation. Their rules should reflect their community and should be reviewed every couple of years to ensure they reflect their evolving nature and current social norms. For instance, 15 years ago we rarely saw rules banning smoking in common areas, now it is common place. In addition to the Board reviewing their rules to ensure they are current, have your Corporation’s lawyer review the rules and your policies, so that you don’t have rules hiding as policies and policies hiding as rules. Further, make sure that they are consistent with changes in Human Rights, the Condo Act and support and flow from your Declaration. This story raises the difficult situation that
The unanswered questions in this story are; Why was the Board/ Management unsatisfied with the answer the Tenant gave regarding their living status? Why did they choose to narrowly enforce the rule? Are they doing the same for all single individuals who are having friends stay over? What is the difference? If the real issue was that this couple was disruptive to the community, the Board/Management could have used ‘quiet enjoyment’. Otherwise, I would refer to Pierre Trudeau’s famous line as then Justice Minister “There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of Canadians”. I think that there is no place for the Board in how couples define their relationships. We have other mechanisms to rely on, should the couple interfere with others quiet enjoyment. If the real reason for the rule was to control short-term rentals, then they need to review and rewrite their rules to be reflective of today’s living environment and social structures. C V
ILLUSTRATION SANDRA DIONISI
a Corporation can find itself in due to unintended consequences. There is speculation that the rule was designed to prevent short-term rentals by limiting people who are unrelated from living together. It also raises the issue, of whether management applied this rule to all other units, where you have two ‘unrelated’ individuals living in the same unit. For instance, two students who are sharing the cost of a rental would be prohibited under the condo’s rule. If management did not send notices to the two students, this would likely be a case for discrimination.
I read, like many of you with surprise, about the case involving a downtown condominium located in the Bay and Wellesley area and the interpretation of a rule by the board and enforced by management with respect to what constituted a “family” in their building. The building was registered in 1991. Occupants are restricted to single families and management was reported to be asking for marriage certificates as evidence of this.
CONDOVOICE WINTER 2021
SM5329_WINTER 2021.indd 48
2021-12-17 8:18 PM
