You are here >   Age-based restrictions
  |  Login
September 2012 Digital Edition
 
 
 
http://www.twitter.com/cdnapartmentmaghttp://www.twitter.com/cdnapartmentmaghttp://www.twitter.com/cdnapartmentmag

 

 

 
 
 


 
 



 

Age-based restrictions


Email  

 


By Andrea Krywonis

Age-based restrictions in condominiums should be dealt with carefully to ensure that they are not discriminatory.

Many rules contain restrictions on the use of certain condo amenities on the basis of age. In the past, it was common for condo declarations, rules or policies to contain provisions restricting occupancy of condo units to persons over the age of 16 (i.e., “adult only” buildings).

In the late 1980s Ontario courts found that age-based restrictions on occupancy were not in contravention of the Human Rights Code (“Code”) and did not qualify as discrimination. Then, and now, the relevant definition of “age” in the Code is “an age that is 18 years or more.” “Family status” was, and is, defined in the Code as “the status of being in a parent and child relationship.”
 

The reasoning behind such findings of the courts was that a “no children under 16” restriction only restricted occupancy of anyone under 16, not 18. The courts were not persuaded that restricting occupancy based on being over 16 was discriminatory on the basis of family status. One court went as far as to say that “the Ontario Code of Human Rights clearly contemplates age discrimination of persons under the age of eighteen years” (see Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 624 v. Ramdial, [1988] O.J. No. 1077 and York Condominium Corp. No. 229 v. Cryderman, [1988] O.J. No. 804).

In 1991, the Ontario Divisional Court, in partially confirming a finding of the Human Rights Board of Inquiry, reversed this trend and found that age-based restriction on the occupancy of a condo did constitute discrimination under the Code. The Court held that:

“Restrictions and policies which prevent children under a specified age from residing with their parents in the latter's choice of accommodation discriminate on the basis of family status. The right which the respondents… had to equal treatment with respect to the occupation of accommodation without discrimination because of "family status", as provided for in… the Code, was infringed.” (York Condominium Corporation No. 216 v. Dudnik, [1991] O.J. No. 638 (Div. Crt.))

In light of the above decision, “family status” is now used as a basis to challenge condo rules and provisions which restrict based on age. This does not mean that age based restrictions are absolutely prohibited. In some cases they have their purpose and the Code and health and safety legislation allow for some exceptions.

For example, the Code says “any right under Part 1 to non-discrimination because of age is not infringed where an age of sixty-five years or over is a requirement, qualification or consideration for preferential treatment.” The “rights” under Part one of the Code include the right to: services, accommodation, to be free from harassment in accommodation, contract, employment, to be free from harassment in employment, vocational associations. This “sixty-five or over” distinction has not been sufficiently tested before the courts or the Human Rights Tribunal but could potentially be a justification for some programs or rules within a condo geared specifically towards those over the age of 65.

Condos have tried to argue that, with respect to recreational facilities, section 23 of the Code says that equal treatment with respect to services and facilities is not infringed when a recreational club restricts or qualifies access to its services because of family status or age. This argument has failed on the basis that a parent unit owner seeking to use the facility with his or her child has an equal shared ownership interest in the common elements, including recreational facilities, as other unit owners. Condo recreational facilities are not “recreational clubs” as intended by section 23 of the Code because membership is not voluntary. In this context, an absolute prohibition on children using a recreational facility or allowing use during a restricted time may have a different impact on parent unit owners than other unit owners.

Health and safety considerations may justify certain age-based restrictions with respect to recreational facilities. The Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act restricts the use of certain pools on the basis of age – in some cases bathers under 12 years of age are not allowed in the pool unless accompanied by a parent or the parent’s agent who is not less than 16 years of age. Most condo pools will fall into a category of pool to which the Health Protection and Promotion Act applies. Similar considerations can be made for spas, weight rooms and other facilities where there is a genuine health and safety aspect to the restriction.

Age-based restrictions in condos must recognize the status of being in a parent and child relationship and must accommodate families. For example, having children’s pool hours Monday through Friday between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. only, when children are often at school and parents may be at work, will have a different impact on unit owners who are parents.

All condos should have a Human Rights Policy so that if a complaint is made about an age-based restriction in their declaration, by-laws or rules, the board has a clear procedure to address the complaint fairly and internally. A condo brought before the Human Rights Tribunal on an age-based or family status matter can easily spend over $50 thousand defending a complaint.

Boards of condos with dubious age-based restrictions should also speak to their insurer about purchasing a human rights defence policy. Condos with provisions which restrict an activity or use of a facility on the basis of age should be careful that such provisions do not discriminate. Boards should seek legal advice if they have any concerns about an existing provision or if they are considering making an age-based restriction.

Andrea Krywonis is an associate lawyer at Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP, a condo-focused law firm in downtown Toronto. You may contact her at andrea.krywonis@gmalaw.ca.

   

 

  < Back     Copyright © CondoBusiness All rights reserved.  



 


);