In this case, there is much more to be found, including a useful and concise reconstruction of the oppression test and some helpful comments on a director`s conflict of interest (or not). To read the entire decision, look at this link. In Noguera, the owners of Unit 210 wanted to acquire the neighbouring unit (unit 211) provided they could open between the two units. It is interesting to note that the owners of 210 and 211 were on the board of directors. The Board of Directors met and agreed to authorize this amendment, with certain conditions as to how the opening should be constructed. This work required some modifications to the common elements. Given that this company has a long history of non-concluding Section 98 agreements with its owners, this case was no exception. „Lexology is one of the few news feeds I watch when it enters – the information is up to date; has good descriptive titles so I can quickly see what the articles are referring to and are not too long. One of the most significant changes to Section 98 applies to changes to the exclusive common elements. An owner may modify the exclusive use of common elements without meeting the prior warning requirement if the room not only meets the above conditions, but is also satisfied that the other owners would not objectively regard the modification as material decomposition or the elimination of their use or enjoyment of their units or common elements. Even if a cost change is relatively small, the law may require all owners to be informed if the change may affect the use of the property by other owners.
Another amendment makes it clear that future owners are bound by the agreement and must keep their promises to do something (i.e. pay money) or not to do something (i.e. install a fence) as part of the agreement. Currently, there is a case law in Ontario that future property owners are bound only by commitments from homeowners before they do something (federally said restrictive). Future owners can only be bound by promises to do something (called positive alliances) if they agree to be bound by promises; Registration is often not enough to hire future owners. The amendments to the Act remove Section 98, as noted above. Section 98 allows owners to make an „amendment” in the same circumstances as those mentioned above: the board approves it, enters into an agreement with the company and a notice is sent to the owners with a copy of the agreement (if any). The term „change” is defined as a complement, modification or improvement of common elements or assets that are not contrary to the law, declaration, statutes or rules.
After a condominium owner built a yard bridge over the common elements adjacent to the owner`s unit without obtaining the agreement of the condo company, the company sought a court order requiring the owner to enter into an agreement pursuant to Section 98. (D.C.C No. 43 v. Bradley) One of the most common errors I see when it comes to section 98 is in its application. It may be easy to understand if Section 98 applies to a change made by an owner, but there are many situations that are often overlooked or ignored. For example, if a homeowner installs new ventilation or exhaust systems in their unit, most components may be inside the unit, but if ventilation requires modifications to the exterior components of the device (i.e..