A recent court decision confirmed that condo owners who undertake renovations without obtaining the required approvals do so at significant risk.
Even where the work has already been completed and substantial sums have been invested, courts may order the renovations removed, authorize the corporation to do the work itself and require the owner to pay the corporation’s costs. This case serves as an important reminder that condo ownership comes with obligations that do not exist in a freehold home.
Before starting any condo renovation project:
1. Review the declaration, by-laws, and rules.
2. Determine whether your work requires modifications to common elements.
3. Determine whether board approval is required.
4. Confirm whether municipal building permits are necessary.
5. Obtain all required approvals before construction begins.
6. Keep records of approvals, permits, and inspections.
Failing to follow these steps can result in far greater costs than the renovation itself, with the condo corporation requiring the owner to undo the renos, at the owner’s cost.
Facts of the case
In this case, owners undertook significant basement renovations, including the installation of a kitchen and bathroom, alterations to plumbing, electrical and ventilation systems, the installation of an additional lock on an exterior door, and the enclosure of a staircase connecting the basement to the main floor.
The problem? None of it had been approved by the condo corporation. The owners also had not obtained the necessary building permits, nor had the renovations been inspected by municipal authorities.
When concerns were raised, the corporation retained engineering experts to inspect the unit. The resulting report identified a number of deficiencies, including fire-safety concerns, improper electrical work, plumbing issues, and deficiencies affecting emergency egress from the basement.
The corporation ultimately brought a court application seeking compliance with the Condo Act and the declaration.
The Rules Were Clear
This was not a situation where the condo was attempting to enforce an unwritten expectation or informal policy. The declaration contained express restrictions on alterations to key components of a unit.
Among other things, the declaration prohibited owners from installing, removing, extending or otherwise altering plumbing, electrical installations, sinks, washrooms, heating and air-conditioning systems, walls, floors, doors and windows without first obtaining the corporation’s written consent.
In this case, no such approval had been sought or obtained.
"I Didn't Know" Is Not a Defence
The owners argued that they were first-time homebuyers and were unaware of the restrictions imposed by the declaration. This argument was not accepted by the court.
Condo ownership is different from ownership of a freehold home. When individuals purchase a condo unit, they acquire rights that are accompanied by obligations. Those obligations are found in the Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules. Whether an owner has actually read those documents is largely beside the point.
Condo living is not the right setting to test the “better to ask for forgiveness than for permission” saying.
"Others Have Done It Too" Doesn't Help
Another common response in compliance disputes is the assertion that other owners have engaged in similar conduct. The owners in this case argued that other units had been renovated.
The court also dismissed the argument.
Whether another owner may also be in breach is generally not a defence to a compliance proceeding. While selective enforcement issues can arise in some circumstances, the existence of another potential violation does not give an owner a free pass to ignore the governing documents.
Essentially, someone else’s non-compliance is not a licence for your own.
The Cost of Compliance
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the decision is the remedy granted.
The court ordered the owners to remove the unauthorized renovations within 30 days. This included the kitchen, bathroom, enclosed staircase, additional lock, and the unauthorized plumbing, electrical and ventilation work.
Importantly, the court was not persuaded by the owners’ submission that they could not afford to remove the renovations or that they wished to keep them. The fact that work is expensive, completed, or even functional does not necessarily prevent a court from ordering its removal.
The court went a step further. If the owners failed to complete the work themselves, the corporation was authorized to enter the unit, retain contractors and professionals, undertake the remediation, and remove property where necessary to facilitate the work.
The owners were also ordered to pay $20,000 in costs, which the corporation was permitted to add to the unit’s common expenses and collect accordingly.
The Takeaway
For boards and managers, this decision reinforces the importance of acting promptly when unauthorized alterations are discovered, particularly where safety concerns may be involved.
For owners, the message is even simpler: Get approval first.
Conclusion
A renovation that appears permissible to an owner may engage building code requirements, affect common elements, create safety concerns, or breach the declaration. Once the work has been completed, the conversation is no longer about obtaining permission. It may become a discussion about demolition, remediation, legal costs, and compliance orders.
As this case demonstrates, when a condominium corporation can establish that alterations were undertaken without approval and in breach of the governing documents, courts remain fully prepared to order that the work be undone, regardless of the time, effort, or money invested in completing it.
You can read the WCC V. Azimi, 2026 ONSC 5742 case.
