Section 98 Group Indemnity Agreement

The Court ruled on the appeal against repression and its ultimate objective of ensuring a fair and equitable outcome. In this context, the Court found that the group was largely responsible for the overall situation because it had not entered into section 98 agreements. Then, when this situation was corrected, the group treated the Nogueras as if the company played little, if any, of importance at previous events, which proved harsh and unfair. It was found that the group unfairly denigrated the Nogueras, wrongly excluded them from the use of common elements, and wrongly fostered an atmosphere that made the Nogueras uncomfortable. In the end, the Tribunal found that the group was “targeted and ill” with the Nogueras. All of this has contributed to the compensation of oppression. The group`s new board of directors quickly began to correct all deficiencies of the former Board of Directors in order to enter into Section 98 agreements with various owners. These retroactive “Blanket” agreements were all identical, with the exception of the Nogueras version, which required the Nogueras to get rid of the opening between units before they could sell it. On the one hand, if, from the outset, the group had simply entered into formal agreements under Section 98, this whole situation could have been avoided. This case is an example of why it is so important to ensure that your business complies with the requirements of the law.

A Section 98 agreement, also known as a “compensation agreement” or “amendment agreement,” is required in all cases where a unit owner proposes to complete, modify or improve the common elements of a condominium (together the “improvement”). Condominium Corporations must exercise caution to ensure compliance with the law. Angela Del Giudice is a condominium administrator with the Condominium Management Group in Ottawa. After holding senior positions in property management companies throughout Eastern Ontario, Angela took over the residential and commercial business during her 25-year career. Through the management of a diversified portfolio of real estate, she has acquired valuable knowledge and experience in the field of real estate management and has built her success and reputation through the consistent provision of a higher level of service for her clients. The owner has been ordered to enter into a Section 98 contract within 30 days or to remove the bridge, otherwise the Corporation is authorized to remove the bridge and charge the owner`s fees as a common fee. The owner had argued that: the bridge was necessary because the condition of the yard was uncertain, muddy and a feast for the eyes; The bridge is removed before the aircraft is sold. and the owner of the adjacent unit was not required to enter into a Section 98 agreement for a similar bridge. The owner`s points were found irrelevant by the court. The court found that the bridge was a maintenance and repair amendment that would result in possible liability, which is why a Section 98 agreement was required. However, the other very important exit statement of this story is that compliance with the law cannot give the company a license for bulldoze and some owners.