Key Issues:

• The Applicant sought a compliance order against the Respondent under section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998. The issues included alleged "hoarding" behavior, denial of entry to service personnel, and a derelict vehicle parked in the condominium's parking spot.

Applicant's Claims:

• The Respondent’s unit is cluttered and poses safety risks.
• The Respondent has repeatedly denied entry to service personnel, violating condominium rules.
• The Respondent’s vehicle is derelict and unused, violating the maintenance rules for the parking spot.

Respondent's Position:

• The unit is not a safety hazard and has been recently decluttered.
• Denials of entry were due to health concerns or specific conditions allowed by the Applicant.
• The car is not derelict but is currently unused.

Court's Decision:

• The court granted a modified compliance order:
  • Allowed the Applicant entry with 72 hours' notice, or without notice in emergencies.
  • Permitted the Applicant to address hazards or nuisances if the Respondent fails to do so.
  • Ordered the Respondent to either restore her car to a driveable condition or remove it within 75 days.
  • Imposed conditions on the Applicant and service personnel to accommodate the Respondent's health concerns.
• No costs were awarded to either party, as success was divided and both parties were found to have some merit in their arguments.

Outcome:

• The compliance order was partially granted with modifications to ensure fairness and accommodate both parties’ concerns. The decision emphasized reasonable access to the unit for maintenance while respecting the Respondent's health concerns.