Written by: Spencer Marks, Witten LLP
Every condominium board eventually encounters the same difficult situation. An owner repeatedly violates the bylaws. Neighbours complain about noise, harassment, damage to common property, or ongoing nuisance behaviour. The board sends warning letters. The condominium manager speaks with the owner. Enforcement notices are issued. Yet the behaviour continues. After months, sometimes years, of dealing with the problem, the board inevitably asks the same question:
Can we remove someone from their own home?
The question reflects a tension at the heart of condominium living. Is a condominium owner more like a bee in a hive, living within a shared structure where individual behaviour must accommodate the community? Or are they more like a queen in a castle, free to do what they want within the walls of their own property?
In Alberta, the answer lies somewhere in between.
Condominium owners retain property rights, but those rights exist within a shared building governed by bylaws and collective responsibilities. When an owner repeatedly refuses to follow those rules, courts do have the power to remove them from the property.
But eviction of a condominium owner is not something Alberta courts grant easily.
Over the past year, I have been involved in three matters in Edmonton and Calgary where condominium corporations ultimately succeeded in evicting owners from their units, although the decisions were issued orally and are not publicly reported. These matters reinforced an important lesson: eviction is possible, but only after condominium corporations demonstrate that they have taken incremental steps to enforce the bylaws and that those efforts have failed.
Understanding what Alberta courts actually require can help boards and managers approach enforcement more effectively when dealing with difficult situations.
The starting point for any discussion about eviction is section 67 of the Condominium Property Act.
Section 67 allows the Court to intervene where there has been “improper conduct.” Improper conduct includes non-compliance with the Act or the condominium bylaws. When improper conduct is established, the Court has broad authority to make orders addressing the situation.
These orders may include directing a person to stop improper conduct, awarding compensation for losses, or giving directions about how matters should be carried out so the conduct does not continue. The Court may also make any other order it considers appropriate in the circumstances.
It is this broad language that allows courts to order the eviction of a condominium owner even though the legislation does not expressly mention eviction.
However, Alberta courts have emphasized that eviction should be treated as an extraordinary remedy.
It is also important to note that the law treats tenants differently from owners. Where a tenant is causing problems in a condominium, the Condominium Property Act provides a more direct enforcement mechanism. Sections 53 to 57 allow condominium corporations, in certain circumstances, to evict tenants. Removing a tenant is therefore far more straightforward. Removing an owner from their own property is considerably more complex.
One of the foundational Alberta cases addressing eviction is The Owners: Condominium Plan No. 022 1347 v. N.Y., 2003 ABQB 790.
In that case, a condominium corporation sought to remove an owner whose conduct repeatedly violated the bylaws and disrupted other residents. Complaints included excessive noise and ongoing breaches of the building’s rules.
The owner argued that the Condominium Property Act did not permit eviction of someone who owned their unit.
The Court rejected that argument, concluding that the broad powers under section 67 allow it to issue whatever orders are necessary to address improper conduct, including eviction.
The decision confirmed that eviction of an owner can occur under Alberta law, but it left open an important question: when should the court exercise that power?
That question was explored in Condominium Plan No. 822 2909 v. 837023 Alberta Ltd., 2010 ABQB 111.
In that case, the condominium corporation attempted to evict the owner of commercial units operating a restaurant in the building. The corporation alleged several bylaw breaches, including unauthorized renovations and disturbances affecting residents.
The Court accepted that some breaches were serious. Yet eviction was refused.
The Court explained that enforcement of condominium bylaws should generally follow an incremental approach. Before the most severe remedy is considered, courts expect condominium corporations to attempt less drastic measures first.
These measures may include orders requiring compliance with the bylaws, compensation for damage to common property, or directions on how problems must be corrected.
Eviction, the Court explained, is an extreme sanction.
At the same time, the Court recognized that eviction may sometimes be necessary. Conduct that creates a danger to other residents, allows hazardous substances to escape from a unit, or causes structural damage to the building could justify such a remedy if the owner refuses to stop after warnings. Even serious misconduct that is not dangerous may justify eviction if breaches continue despite repeated warnings and enforcement efforts.
But eviction should not be used simply because an owner has been disruptive. Condominium corporations must show they attempted other enforcement measures first.
When boards first consider eviction, they often assume the seriousness of the misconduct will justify immediate removal. In practice, courts focus more on the enforcement steps taken by the condominium corporation.
Courts expect to see a clear enforcement history. Typically, this begins with warning letters and enforcement notices. If those efforts fail, the corporation may bring a court application under section 67 seeking an order requiring the owner to comply with the bylaws.
These are commonly referred to as bylaw enforcement applications. In many cases, the corporation will also seek injunctive relief, asking the Court to prohibit the owner from continuing certain conduct. Injunctions are
particularly useful where behaviour involves ongoing nuisance, harassment, safety concerns, or damage to property.
An injunction allows the Court to clearly prohibit specific conduct and creates a binding order that the owner must follow.
In the three matters I was involved in over the past year, the path to eviction followed a similar pattern.
Each case involved serious and repeated misconduct by an owner. Eventually, the corporations applied to the Court seeking orders requiring the owners to comply with the bylaws and stop the offending conduct.
Those orders were granted. But the behavior did not stop. The owners continued to violate the bylaws and ignored the Court’s directions. At that point, the issue was no longer simply about bylaw violations. It became a matter of disobeying a court order.
When an owner breaches a court order, the corporation can return to court seeking a finding of contempt of court. Contempt is taken very seriously. Once the Court concludes an owner will not follow either the bylaws or its orders, eviction becomes a realistic remedy.
Evicting a condominium owner remains one of the most serious remedies available under the Condominium Property Act. It is not a tool that can be used quickly or easily.
But it is also not impossible.
The Alberta decisions make clear that eviction is reserved for situations where an owner persistently refuses to follow the rules governing condominium living. When someone repeatedly ignores the bylaws, disregards enforcement efforts, and ultimately disobeys a court order, the balance shifts.
At that point, the Court may conclude that the integrity of the condominium community can only be protected by removing the owner from the property.
For condominium boards and managers dealing with the most challenging enforcement situations, understanding what Alberta courts actually require is critical. Eviction may be rare, but when the proper steps are taken, it remains a remedy the courts are prepared to grant.
Spencer Marks is a condominium lawyer at Witten LLP, based in Alberta, who provides strategic guidance to condominium corporations, boards of directors, condominium managers, and unit owners on a wide range of legal and governance matters.