Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Unapproved basement renovations, including a washroom and kitchen, breached the condominium’s declaration and s. 119 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
   
• Engineering evidence that the plumbing, electrical and ventilation work posed risks of fire, damage and pipe blockage or bursting established a breach of s. 117 of the Act.
   
• Edison’s opinions that the work “may” increase the load on sanitary services or promote condensation did not satisfy the court that s. 117 was breached.
   
• Being first-time homebuyers unaware of the rules, or pointing to renovations by other owners, was rejected as a defence.
   
• Assertions that some renovations predated the purchase were unsupported by evidence and left as an issue for another day.
   
• Full indemnity costs of $32,545 were not considered fair and reasonable, and the court fixed costs at $20,000 all-inclusive.
   

Facts of the case

In Wentworth Condominium Corporation No. 276 v Azimi, 2026 ONSC 5742, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard an application by a condominium corporation. It sought orders requiring unit owners Sadaf Azimi, Sahar Azimi and Mursal Azimi to comply with the Condominium Act, 1998 and the condominium’s declaration. The application was heard on October 8, 2026, on a short motions list with 18 matters, and the reasons were released the next day.

The condominium filed extensive materials. The self-represented respondents filed none. At the hearing, they handed the court a two-page letter with photographs and screenshots. Their submissions were not supported by evidence, but the court considered them anyway.

It was undisputed that the respondents added a washroom and a kitchen in the basement of their unit without the condominium’s approval. They acknowledged they did not obtain a building permit, and no authority inspected the work. When the condominium learned of possible alterations, it asked for further information, which the respondents did not provide. They also refused consent for the City to release the unit’s architectural plans.

The condominium retained engineers, Edison, who inspected the unit. Their report identified several problems:

• The stair access between the basement and main floor had been closed with drywall, limiting egress contrary to the Ontario Building Code.
• Fire dampers required by the Code were missing.
• The plumbing, electrical and ventilation work did not appear to comply with the Code. Electrical wires were not properly secured, the kitchen drain and domestic supply piping were unsupported, and certain drainage systems had been installed.

No permission had been sought to install the basement bathroom or kitchen, perform the electrical and plumbing work, put a lock on the common-element exterior basement door, or board up the basement stairs.

The condominium sent the report to the respondents and demanded that all renovations be removed and the affected common elements restored. Through a legal representative, the respondents replied on December 11, 2025, that contractors had been hired and would begin work in the first week of January 2026. A further message on January 9, 2026, said the owner was willing to make the changes recommended by the condominium. Nothing more was heard from them.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Section 17(3) of the Act requires a condominium corporation to take all reasonable steps to ensure owners comply with the Act, declaration, by-laws and rules. Under s. 19, the corporation may enter a unit on reasonable notice to carry out its objects and duties. Section 117 prohibits anyone from causing a condition or activity in a unit or the common elements that is likely to damage property or assets or cause injury or illness. Owners must comply with the Act, declaration, by-laws and rules under s. 119(1), and s. 119(3) gives the corporation the right to require that compliance.

Article IV(e) of the declaration bars installing, removing, extending or altering any wall, floor, door, window, toilet, bathtub, wash basin, sink, or heating, air conditioning, plumbing or electrical installation in a unit without the corporation’s prior written consent. Painting and decorating are excepted.

Article V(1) obliges each owner to maintain and repair their unit at their own expense. Owners are also responsible for resulting damage to other units or the common elements, except where the repair cost can be recovered under the corporation’s insurance.

Article V(1)(c) applies where an owner fails to make required repairs within a reasonable time after written notice. The corporation may then do the work and recover the full cost from the owner, including legal and collection costs. Those costs carry interest at the Royal Bank of Canada’s prime rate plus 8%, compounded monthly, and can be collected as common expenses.

Reasoning and analysis

Edison opined that the plumbing, electrical and ventilation issues posed a significant risk to the property, increasing the risk of lint accumulation, fire, damage, and blockage or bursting of pipes. On that evidence, the court found a breach of s. 117. Two further opinions did not satisfy the court that s. 117 was breached:

• that the plumbing alterations, including the basement bathroom, “may” increase the load on sitewide sanitary services; and
• that improperly installed ventilation “may” promote condensation and deterioration of the common elements.

No permission had been sought for the basement bathroom and kitchen, the electrical and plumbing work, the lock, or the boarded-up stairs. On that basis, the court held that the renovations breached both the declaration and s. 119 of the Act.

People who move into a condominium must be prepared to live by the rules of the community they join, the court observed. Citing Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2395 v. Wong, 2016 ONSC 8000, it added that the Act, declaration, by-laws and rules are vital to the integrity of the title acquired by unit owners.

None of the respondents’ arguments succeeded:

• First-time buyers. Not knowing the rules as first-time homebuyers was no defence. On their own information, they had been represented by a lawyer, and they had earlier requested other changes and renovations from the condominium.
• Other owners’ renovations. Renovations by other owners likewise offered no excuse.
• Pre-existing work. The respondents tendered no evidence that some of the work predated their purchase. The court left that issue for another day, noting that if it were established, the respondents may argue they are not responsible for the costs of dismantling that work.
• Cost of removal. Being unable to afford removal did not entitle the respondents to keep the renovations. Because they said they also could not pay the condominium to do the work, they were given time to remove it themselves.

On costs, the court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the reasonableness principle from Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier and Davies v. Clarington (Municipality). The condominium claimed full indemnity costs of $32,545 and argued that other owners would bear any shortfall. The court found the amount claimed was not fair and reasonable.

Ruling and overall outcome

Wentworth Condominium Corporation No. 276 succeeded. Within 30 days, the respondents must remove:

• the basement bathroom and kitchen;
• the drywall or other obstruction on the stairs;
• the additional lock on the exterior patio door; and
• any unauthorized plumbing, electrical and ventilation work in the basement.

Starting 35 days from the order, they must allow the condominium or its agents into the unit at 30-76 Frances Avenue, Stoney Creek. The purpose is to inspect for dangerous conditions and investigate the unit’s state.

If the respondents fail to comply, the condominium will receive temporary vacant possession on 24 hours’ notice. It may then engage contractors and engineers to remediate the work and remove and store chattels or fixtures as needed.

Costs to date, including pre-application work, were fixed at $20,000 all-inclusive. They are payable to the condominium and collectable as common expenses for the unit. The balance of the application, including any claim for damages, losses, costs or expenses from addressing the modifications, will return on ten days’ notice. The total monetary recovery therefore remains undetermined beyond the $20,000 costs award.