In addition to the requirements in point (c), an agreement under Section 98 should stipulate that the unit owner is responsible for removing the additive upon notification from the company and that the addition is subject to inspections. An agreement should provide that construction is completed within a specified time frame and that, if the type of construction warrants it, it may require building permits, electrical and sanitary permits and, depending on the extent of the work, provide that a deposit is paid by the owner of the unit and that it is held by the company for the construction period. One of the most important changes to Section 98 applies to changes to exclusive common elements. An owner may modify the exclusive use of common elements without meeting the prior warning requirement if the room not only meets the above conditions, but is also satisfied that the other owners would not objectively regard the modification as material decomposition or the elimination of their use or enjoyment of their units or common elements. Even if a cost change is relatively small, the law may require all owners to be informed if the change may affect the use of the property by other owners. A Section 98 agreement is a valuable tool for any real estate administrator or council who wants to ensure that a common-going unit owner`s installation does not endanger the occupants of the condominium, their structural integrity or value, or that the business is subject to additional insurance costs, maintenance and/or repair obligations. A well-developed Section 98 agreement will clarify, attribute and minimize the risk. That`s the myth. This section assumes that any change or improvement is structural or permanent in nature. That`s not true.
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. Another amendment makes it clear that future owners are bound by the agreement and must keep their promises to do something (i.e. pay money) or not to do something (i.e.
install a fence) as part of the agreement. Currently, there is a case law in Ontario that future property owners are bound only by commitments from homeowners before they do something (federally said restrictive). Future owners can only be bound by promises to do something (called positive alliances) if they agree to be bound by promises; Registration is often not enough to hire future owners. The owner has been ordered to enter into a Section 98 contract or to remove the bridge within 30 days, otherwise the company has the right to remove the bridge and charge the owner`s fees as a common fee.