Focus On

CONDOMINIUMS - Unit holders - Rights of - Leasing unit to tenant

Monday, October 04, 2021 @ 8:50 AM  

Lexis Advance® Quicklaw®
Appeal by Panorama Mountain Village from a judgment cancelling registration of a restrictive covenant. The appellant was a destination resort that utilized a condominium hotel model whereby complexes were run as a hotel with related centralized services and individual ownership of the residential units therein. Owners who sought to rent to the public were required to do so through the resort’s centralized rental management system. A covenant registered against title to each unit prevented any other rentals. The respondents owned a unit within one of the complexes. They terminated their rental pool management agreement with the centralized system and rented their unit privately through an external online booking platform. The appellant sent a notice to the respondents stating that the private rental was not permitted. The respondents filed a petition seeking cancellation of registration of the covenant. The chambers judge held that the covenant lacked sufficient certainty and that its registration should be cancelled. Panorama appealed.

HELD: Appeal allowed. The conclusions reached by the chambers judge were contrary to the relevant authorities and the uncontroverted circumstances of the case, resulting in an erroneous interpretation of the covenant. The covenant in the predicate case was materially distinguishable in its wording from that found to be uncertain in another case. The requirement that owners who sought to rent out their units must do so through the centralized rental management system operated by the owner was neither vague nor uncertain. There was no requirement to enter into a rental pool management agreement. The covenant was not required to contain all commercial terms of the rental pool system. The covenant and its terms were clearly and properly disclosed to purchasers. New purchasers would understand the unambiguous contractual commitments that were expected of them if they wished to rent their units. The respondents’ petition was dismissed.

Kent v. Panorama Mountain Village Inc., [2021] B.C.J. No. 1964, British Columbia Court of Appeal, G. Dickson, S.A. Griffin and P.G. Voith JJ.A., September 10, 2021. Digest No. TLD-October42021001