Category Archives: Legal Information

AGENCY EXPLAINED (IN SIMPLE ENGLISH)

By: Martin K. I. Rumack, Barrister and Solicitor

Few people realize that the concept of “agency” is actually a well-defined legal concept. In fact, there are several different types of agency, and each with its own characteristics. In the plainest terms, an ‘agent’ is someone who has the authority to act on behalf of someone else as their representative.

As a very simple example: “A” has been authorized by “P” to purchase a sports car. A will go to the dealership, will negotiate the deal, and will sign the contract on P’s behalf. In the end, the sports car belongs to P, and P has the obligation to pay for it. A was merely exercising the authority she had been given by P, to conclude P’s deal with the car dealership for him.

In this scenario, A is known as the “agent’, while P is the ‘principal”. A relationship of “agency” has been established. Moreover, from the legal standpoint, the contract for the sale of the car will be between P and the dealership, rather than between A and the dealership. A merely acted as P’s representative.

The authority that A has to negotiate and conclude P’s deal can come in many different forms, and the law recognizes different nuances between them. Whether or not an agent has the authority from his or her principal can be a very important issue – it can determine whether the contract made on the principal’s behalf is a valid one.

“RATIFICATION” & “UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL”

It’s important to point out that even if A bought P a motorcycle (instead of a sports car) without his permission, there is a concept known as “ratification” that might save the day. Despite the fact that A failed to adhere to the scope of her authority (i.e. the purchase of a sports tor), P may decide that the motorcycle actually suits him better, and may decide to confirm the contract A entered into with the dealership, after-the-fact. In this situation, P’s ratification makes the contract with the dealership as good as if A had been authorized to buy a motorcycle in the first place.

The concept of ‘undisclosed principal’ can also be important particularly in real estate transactions where the identity of the parties to the deal might matter. Let’s say that C owns two condominium units side-by-side, and lives in one of them but decides to put the other one up for sale. Whoever purchases the unit from C will also become his neighbour, so C is Roping to-find someone who shares his fondness for peace and quiet. D, who looks like the quiet type, approaches C with an offer. D leads C to believe that he is interested in the condominium personally, i.e. that D is the potential buyer.

Unbeknownst to C however, the offer put forth by D is actually from H, who is a determined (but hopelessly untalented) novice trombone player. In this situation, D is H’s agent, and H is what is known as an “undisclosed principal”.

If C accepts the offer to purchase, mistakenly believing that it comes from D, is C out of luck.  Generally speaking, there is nothing to prevent an agent from entering into a valid contract on behalf of on undisclosed principal. There is an exception, though, if the true identity of the buyer of the condominium is important to C as seller, or if D the agent exceeded his authority from H somehow. In these instances, there will be no valid contract between C and H at all.

WHY YOU NEED TO KNOW

Buyers and sellers of condominiums should become aware of the concept of agency, as a means of protecting themselves from potentially costly legal misunderstandings. True, in most typical real estate transactions there is no confusion as to who a particular real estate agent acts for, usually because the agency arises through the signing of a contract (i.e., the seller signs an agreement with the listing agent).

But an agency relationship can arise without a written contract being signed – either through the consent between the agent and the seller, or by their mere conduct. This means that two people might be in a principal-agent relationship without necessarily being fully aware of it – or of its potential consequences!

Martin K. I. Rumack is a Toronto based Barrister and Solicitor and is a regular contributor to the Muddy York Blog. Contact Information:  202 – 2 St. Clair Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario, M4T 2T5, Tel:  (416) 961-3441 (Ext. 26)

Pets and Condominiums – Why Can’t I Keep Fluffy?

no-pets

By: Martin K. I. Rumack, Barrister and Solicitor

Living in a condominium can be the best of both worlds: a condo owner has outright title to his or her own unit, but at the same time can enjoy the benefits of shared responsibility for the common elements and enjoy the “instant community” that a condo living can provide.

For pet lovers, however, the condominium lifestyle can have its drawbacks. This is because condominium corporations are entitled by law to set restrictions on a unit owner’s right to keep pets – or may prohibit pet ownership outright. The authority to do this comes from the Ontario Condominium Act, 1998, which clearly allows condominium corporations to include such restrictions or prohibitions in their declarations.

As with most rules, however, there can be exceptions. The condominium corporation’s declaration can be amended to allow for pets, but only if the owners of at least 80 per cent of the units consent in writing. The condominium board must also approve of the amendment, must hold certain meetings, and must notify the mortgagees of the proposed change.

Unfortunately, if the declaration has not been amended to allow for pets, there is little that a pet-loving unit owner can do. Several years ago, a unit owner challenged her condominium corporation’s “no pets” rule in the Ontario courts, on the grounds of unfairness. She wanted her dog “Jazz” to be allowed to live with her in her condominium unit, and pointed out that there were many other owners who kept pets. She also relied on the fact that the condominium management staff had never complained about pets being on the premises, and had never tried to enforce the prohibition before.

Although the court concluded that it had the right to override the “no pets” prohibition in the declaration, it could only do so in the right combination of circumstances. In particular, the court felt that it had to take into account the overall nature of the specific condominium environment, including the following factors:

  1. The nature of the total development — for example, is it a high-rise or townhouses? Does it consist of senior only or mixed residential?
  2. What are the reasonable expectations of the other occupants of the development?
  3. How seriously do other occupants take this particular issue as opposed to other issues?
  4. Does the conduct of the unit owner in question interfere with others?
  5. Have there been any complaints by other unit owners?
  6. What is the relationship between or amongst the various interested parties?
  7. What is the actual wording of the covenant which is being enforced — are similar pets allowed, for example, while dogs are disallowed?
  8. What are the advantages of requiring compliance compared to the advantages of permitting noncompliance?

In the end, the court was sympathetic to the fact that the unit owner was extremely fond of her dog. Nonetheless, it found that she had to abide by the condominium corporation’s rules.

This may seem like an unusually harsh outcome, and one which will no doubt rub pet-lovers the wrong way. However, the court reasoned that, by allowing the “no pets” prohibition to be ignored, the door would be open for other unit owners to request all kinds of other exemptions. And in the end, unit owners need to be aware that the condominium corporation’s by-laws and declaration are in place for a good reason, and will be enforced both by the condominium corporation and by the courts if necessary.

The underlying message to both pet lovers and non-lovers alike is that the condominium ownership is different from owning a freehold home. Condo owners must be prepared to live by the rules of the community that they are joining – after all, the rules are designed to benefit all owners as a whole.

Martin K. I. Rumack is a Toronto based Barrister and Solicitor and is a regular contributor to the Muddy York Blog. Contact Information:  202 – 2 St. Clair Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario, M4T 2T5, Tel:  (416) 961-3441 (Ext. 26)

Title Insurance: Protection For As Long As You Own Your Home

By Max Cohen, Senior Partner of Cohen LLP, Barristers and Solicitors

You may have read some of the recent horror stories published in Canadian newspapers about homeowners becoming victims of identity theft and mortgage fraud. The incidence of this type of fraud has increased significantly in Ontario with the introduction of electronic title registration. A lot of our clients are asking how they can protect themselves against title and mortgage fraud. Unfortunately, even the best security system won’t protect against this kind of invasion.

In recent years, more and more home buyers and homeowner are purchasing title insurance policies to reduce the risk of mortgage fraud, and in many cases, reduce the closing costs associated with buying a home. “Title insurance” is offered by a handful of reputable companies to protect a homeowner’s ownership interest (ie. your title) against risks associated with fraud and many less serious matters such as by-law infractions, permit deficiencies and unpaid taxes or utility bills.

In Ontario, lawyers who act for home purchasers will always obtain and review a “title search”, which shows who owns the property and whether there are any mortgages or liens registered on title. The lawyer will also check to see if there are any judgments against the Seller of the property. The Buyer’s lawyer will write a letter to the Seller’s lawyer requiring that all liens and encumbrances be satisfied and discharged from title, so that the Buyer gets good title to the property. Continue reading