Condominium Plan v Owners and Mortgagees
The Owners: Condominium Plan No 002 1156 o/a Castledowns Pointe
Law Firm / Organization
Willis Law
Lawyer(s)

Hugh Willis

Owners and Mortgagees of Condominium Units at Castledowns Pointe as Attached in Schedule "A"
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Toronto Dominion Bank
Law Firm / Organization
Witten LLP
Lawyer(s)

Coralie J. Mohr

Bank of Montreal
Law Firm / Organization
Witten LLP
Lawyer(s)

Coralie J. Mohr

Royal Bank of Canada
Law Firm / Organization
Witten LLP
Lawyer(s)

Stephanie C. Chau

Bank of Nova Scotia
Law Firm / Organization
Duncan Craig LLP
Lawyer(s)

Andrea L. Willey

Scotia Mortgage Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Duncan Craig LLP
Lawyer(s)

Andrea L. Willey

some Respondent Unit Owners
Law Firm / Organization
McAllister LLP
Lawyer(s)

Michelle Andresen

Key Points:

  1. Background:

    • A fire in March 2023 destroyed parts of the Castledowns Pointe condominium building, rendering it uninhabitable.
    • Structural deficiencies, predating the fire, were discovered during inspections. Repairs were estimated to cost over $7 million.
    • The City of Edmonton ordered evacuation in September 2023, and the building remains unoccupied.
  2. Condominium Corporation’s Actions:

    • The Board proposed selling the entire property as-is due to the high repair costs.
    • Despite failing to achieve the required 75% owner approval for termination, the Board sought court orders to terminate the condominium status and sell the property.
    • The Court permitted listing and subsequent extensions for sale closing dates (now January 31, 2025).
  3. Court Decision:

    • Under Section 61(3) of Alberta’s Condominium Property Act, the Court granted the Condominium Corporation authority to:
      • Use insurance proceeds and reserve funds to pay debts and ongoing property expenses.
      • Hold back insurance proceeds for future claims, carrying costs, and litigation expenses.
    • The Court emphasized that these measures were necessary to prevent further financial and property deterioration, benefiting all stakeholders, including mortgagees.
  4. Opposition by Mortgagees:

    • Some mortgage lenders argued against the use of insurance proceeds to cover expenses, claiming their interests were compromised.
    • The Court rejected these arguments, ruling that protecting the property and covering liabilities was in line with the Act’s intent.
  5. Financial Status:

    • The Corporation owes approximately $955,000, primarily to service providers and legal counsel.
    • The reserve fund has dwindled, and over half of the unit owners are in arrears on contributions.
  6. Insurance Proceeds:

    • $2.9 million of insurance proceeds are held in trust.
    • The Court permitted their use for essential expenses and directed the Corporation to maintain sufficient reserves for potential claims.
    • No monetary award specified.
Court of King's Bench of Alberta
2403 06046
Real estate
Applicant