« Sales up 10 Per Cent over 2005 | Main | No bubble in house prices »
'This is not a cat case'
A
Toronto woman's right to keep her elderly cat in her condominium has been upheld in a court case that the losing lawyer says has implications for countless condos.
The building's condominium board, which developed a belated interest in enforcing a no-pets provision in 2004, dragged the case through two courts and tried to take it to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Casey, 13, can stay in his Toronto home. On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the board's appeal and ordered it to pay Nancy Staib's legal costs.
That means the fight is over and Staib's cat, Casey, can stay in her Queen's Quay apartment on Toronto's waterfront.
The board's lawyer, Mark Arnold, said the case was pursued to defend a basic condition written into the condominium corporation's charter. "This is not a cat case," he told the CBC. "Sane people do not go to the Supreme Court of Canada to evict a cat."
Arnold stressed that the no-animals rule was not enacted by the board but was built into the legal structure of the condominium. It was meant to assure buyers who were allergic to cats, for example, that there would be none in the building, he said.
He said the outcome of the case means condo boards across Ontario will have to police all conditions of their charters energetically or lose the right to do so. Now the board must abide by decisions that went against it in 2005 in Ontario Superior Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal.
In a summary, Supreme Court officials laid out these facts: "Staib moved into her condominium in March of 1994. At the time, she had her cat. She was aware of the 'no pets' provision when she moved in. "However, she was never asked to remove her cat until 2004. By this time, her cat was almost 12 years old and essentially unadoptable.
The condo board claimed that they first learned of the existence of the cat when their maintenance people went in to Staib's unit in 2004, yet the [Ontario Superior Court] judge found uncontradicted evidence that the maintenance people had been in her unit throughout the 10-year period. The board was ready to bear the expense of an appeal to the highest court in the land after its case was dismissed by that judge and by a three-judge Ontario appeal panel.
April 6, 2006 in Legal Considerations | Permalink
Comments
PRELAUNCH PRELAUNCH PRELAUNCH PRELAUNCH
OF
NITISHREE PROJECT AT AGRA
Residential plots 250 sq yd, 300 sq yd@ 3855 PER YD
for more details please contact:-
SAMEER
9910481634/630
0120-4310909
aura_infra@yahoo.co.in
Posted by: | Sep 26, 2006 2:20:57 AM
APPARTMENT 3BR AT GHAZIABAD 3 LAKHS
3BR APPARTMENT NITISHREE
1395 sq ft
PROJECT SHOURYAPURAM OF 3LAKHS!!!!!!
For more details contact
9910481630/626/634
aura_infra@yahoo.co.in
0120-4310909
Posted by: Abhishek Jain | Sep 26, 2006 2:19:42 AM
for the Gentleman that posted the note above about 77 and 99 harbour square please contact me at 416 737 9388 to discuss. Thanks
Posted by: Tarek | Jun 20, 2006 7:31:45 PM
June 14, 2006
The same building/corporation has today just sent a letter to over 40 tennants/owners, myself included, who have been found to have cats in their condos.
The letter states that we have 20 days to remove our cats and that our units will be inspected for pets on July 4th.
I am writing this to try and connect the other people who received this letter, so that we can better share information surrounding this "contravention of declaration, no "pet" building" letter.
The corporation is not within it's rights to enforce this rule as decided by the supreme court. Please post a comment here with your thoughts or e-mail me directly and I'll be happy to share the information I've gathered that even further supports our rights to keep our kitty!!!
Any legal professionals or people knowledgable in this arena are welcome to contact me as well.
Thanks.
Posted by: James | Jun 14, 2006 6:39:27 PM
It never fails to amaze me that people continue to buy condos with rules like this in place. I can understand not allowing large dogs because they wouldn't have a private yard to run in but to refuse cats?!? If I want to be told I can't have a cat, I'll rent an apartment. When I own it, I'd better be allowed to have my kitties there.
Posted by: Dorinne | Apr 12, 2006 4:49:52 PM
