Special to the Star
Q: I have two dogs. The board has now passed a rule setting out a limit of one dog per unit. Can I be forced to give up one of my dogs?
A: In order for this rule to be considered reasonable and, therefore, valid, it must have a "grandfather" clause, specifying that it does not apply to residents who had two dogs when the rule came into effect. The rule should provide that once a grandfathered second dog dies or is removed from a unit, it cannot be replaced.
Q: When we purchased our new townhouse, we requested garden doors in place of sliding doors. The developer refused on the basis that the rules required all doors to be identical. But the last unit constructed, purchased by a relative of the developer, has the very doors I requested. The developer told me the doors are now provided as an upgrade.
I, and a majority of other owners, feel nobody should be entitled to doors that do not comply. Can we demand that the offending door be replaced?
A: The rule would appear to be reasonable and valid. The board has an obligation to enforce its rules and should require the unit owner to replace the door.
Of course, if the turnover meeting has not taken place, the developer-appointed board may refuse and could attempt to amend the rule to remove the requirement for uniformity.
The board must send the amended rule to the owners, advising that owners of 15 per cent of the units have 30 days to requisition a meeting to vote on the rule. If many units have not been transferred to purchasers, the developer may have sufficient votes to approve the rule amendment.
Q: Our board has been promising for some time to install automatic door openers. We are now advised that an opener will be installed only at the main entrance and not at the entrance from the parking garage. Is the board obligated to install automatic systems at any entrance where those with disabilities require them?
A: The Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in accommodation against persons with a handicap. Even if the person is treated no differently than everyone else, there will be constructive discrimination if the situation imposes a burden on that person as a result of the handicap.
If persons with physical disabilities are deprived of reasonable access to the building from the parking garage, the board is obligated to rectify the situation unless to do so would cause "undue hardship." Automating doors would certainly not impose an undue hardship on the corporation.
Send questions to gerryhyman@bellnet.ca or fax him at 416-925-8492. Letter volume prevents individual replies.
No comments:
Post a Comment