Condo owners, writes Bob Aaron, do not have the freedoms they would enjoy in freehold homes, and must adhere to bylaws. Just ask the couple who wound up in court over a dishwasher and a doorbell.
This is a true story about a $10,000 doorbell.
It took place in a 102-unit condominium building on Hwy. 20 West in the Niagara region town of Pelham.
In the fall of 2023, Marianne and Leroy Locke installed a video doorbell on their unit’s entry doorway.
They later added an in-unit washer and dryer. It wasn’t long before these conveniences became flashpoints in a heated dispute with the condominium corporation.
Under Ontario law, every condominium consists of units owned by individuals and common elements jointly owned by all the owners in the building. The Condominium Act requires owners to obtain board approval if they want to alter common elements in or near their units.
Although the corridor door and door frame may seem like they belong to the unit owner, their exteriors are typically part of the common elements and any changes to them require board approval.
Two years after the Lockes installed their video doorbell, the board decided that it had to be removed. After some discussion, the board later allowed the doorbell to remain in place if the owners signed an indemnity agreement.
The agreement would require the owners to pay any costs and expenses arising from the alteration. The Lockes refused to sign it.
A second dispute relating to the installation of a washer and dryer came to a head when the Lockes refused to allow the building superintendent to enter their unit and inspect the installation due to concerns about flooding and electrical connections.
Heated discussions between the board representatives and the owners ensued.
In January and February this year, the parties wound up in court in St. Catharines before Justice Joseph R. Henderson.
After hearing submissions from both sides, the judge wrote in his ruling that the Condominium Act allows a board to approve additions or alterations to the common elements if the owners sign an indemnity agreement.
The Act also provides that representatives of a condominium corporation may enter a unit to conduct an inspection after giving reasonable notice.
The judge ordered the owners to sign an indemnity agreement covering the installation of the doorbell. He also ordered them to permit the board and its representatives to enter the unit upon reasonable notice.
Noting that the corporation was successful on both the doorbell and inspection issues, the judge ordered the owners to pay the building’s costs on what the law calls a full indemnity basis — in other words, all of its legal expenses. These he fixed at $10,000 — an enormous sum for a doorbell and inspection of appliance connections.
The court’s decision serves as a reminder that condominium living is based on a compact combining collective responsibility and individual ownership, even if the owners do not agree with the rules.
Unit owners do not have the freedoms they would enjoy in freehold homes, and they must adhere to the condominium rules, bylaws and legislation.
Condominium living is not for everyone since it requires surrendering some autonomy and living by rules set by others. Sometimes those rules — or their enforcement — may seem arbitrary or petty, but that is the price to be paid for community living in a condo setting.
Failing to appreciate that there must be a balance between individual rights and community rules can leave neighbours facing off not just in hallways, but also in courtrooms.