Eviction of an owner is not expressly provided for in the act and Courts have accepted that eviction of an owner is a remedy which can be granted when an owner's conduct is found to have been improper ("improper conduct") in accordance with section 67 of the CPA. The remedy of eviction of an owner was first granted in 2003 in the OCP #0221347 v. N.Y. This case was relied on by lawyers in Calgary since 2003. Though not expressly indicated in N.Y. it was generally understood that eviction of an owner was a serious remedy and the Court would only grant an eviction Order in the most serious of circumstances.
In 2010 the Alberta Court of Appeal in CC #8110264 v. Farkas concluded that the Honourable Mr. Justice Burrows of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench erred in not granting the condominium corporation some relief and in stating this expressly recognized the availability of the remedy of eviction of an owner:
Justice Veit then went on to state:
As this case did not deal with conduct of a residential owner, instead dealing with the conduct of an owner of a restaurant and commercial condominium, its application to the conduct of residential owners may be limited to the general application of the principal of incrementalism and the Courts will likely continue to have to assess the seriousness of the impugned conduct. The writer is motivated to make two comments as a result of Justice Veit's written reasons. First it is prudent for condominium corporations to amend their bylaws to specifically provide for the remedy of eviction and in this regard to detail the basis upon which the remedy ought to be granted. Second, condominium corporations should be sure to detail over time the efforts expended to gain the compliance of a recalcitrant owner with the bylaws of the condominium corporation; that is detailed notes of all incidents should be kept, fines imposed if the bylaws allow same, and demand letters be sent. Condominium corporations cannot expect to be granted the remedy of eviction without first having followed an incremental approach.
Though not binding on Courts in Alberta, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice also issued a decision in 2010 dealing with egregious conduct of an owner. In the case Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 747 v. Korolekh the Court granted the remedy of forced sale in favour of the condominium corporation against a recalcitrant owner; to the best of the writer's knowledge this remedy has not sought and has not been granted in Alberta. However, section 67 of the CPA appears to be broad enough to allow for this.
It will be curious to see how serious the conduct of an owner will need to be for the Courts in Alberta to grant either the remedy of eviction of an owner or even possibly the remedy of forced sale of the owner's unit in light of these cases.