McLeod v McCauley Court Condominium Corporation, 2026 SKKB 3 is a useful reminder that a condominium corporation's authority over a rented unit is not open-ended, even where the corporation has legitimately obtained a writ of possession against a tenant.

Background

Mr. McLeod owned a unit within McCauley Court Condominium Corporation (the ”Corporation") which he rented to tenants. Escalating disputes between Mr. McLeod’s tenant and the Corporation's property manager, who was also the Corporation's board president, resulted in the Corporation taking steps to evict the tenant. The Corporation applied to the Office of Residential Tenancies ("ORT") for an order for possession under section 80 of The Condominium Property Act, 1993 (“CPA”) and section 70 of The Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (“RTA”). Ultimately, the Corporation succeeded at the ORT and a writ of possession was issued to have the tenant removed.

Under section 10(2) of The Residential Tenancies Regulations, 2007, a writ of possession issued under section 70(13) of the RTA must specify an expiry, the standard expiration being 30 days from issuance, which was the case in this situation. The tenant was evicted and the Corporation took possession of the unit at the end of July.

From that point forward, Mr. McLeod made requests in July, August, and September 2025, to have possession of the unit returned to him so that he could repair and sell it. The Corporation refused each request. At various points, the Corporation placed conditions on return of the unit, including one instance where the Corporation conditioned return of the unit on Mr. McLeod retaining its property manager's affiliated brokerage as his listing agent for the eventual sale. The Corporation also attempted to enforce a $9,000 lien registered by the Corporation on the unit for chargebacks by retaining possession.

Mr. McLeod commenced an originating application in December 2025 seeking a declaration of oppression under section 99.2 of the CPA, asking for return of possession of the unit, removal of the disputed lien chargebacks, and damages.

The Decision

Mr. McLeod was ultimately successful on his application.

First, the Court held that the writ of possession, read together with the CPA and RTA expired 30 days after issuance. As such, it was deemed that the Corporation had no continuing right to withhold possession of the unit from its owner once that period had passed. The Court characterized the writ as a temporary enforcement mechanism directed at removing a tenant, not a vehicle for the Corporation to assume an indefinite proprietary interest in the unit.

Second, the Court found that Mr. McLeod's expectation of regaining possession following the tenant's eviction and the writ's expiry was reasonable, and that it had been breached. The Court identified the Corporation's conduct as oppressive on two independent bases: (1) by preventing Mr. McLeod from accessing his own unit for months despite repeated requests, and (2) by assessing chargebacks against the unit without establishing that the underlying costs were properly attributable to it. The Court was also critical of the Corporation's insistence that Mr. McLeod use its property manager's affiliated brokerage as a condition of regaining possession, given the conflict of interest where the individual controlling access to the unit stood to benefit personally from that condition.

Additionally, the Court rejected the Corporation's position that section 63 of the CPA, which permits a corporation to register and enforce a lien for unpaid common expense or reserve fund contributions, could be used as a basis to withhold possession pending payment. Section 63 provides an enforcement mechanism (including, ultimately, foreclosure); however, it does not authorize self-help possession. As such, the disputed chargebacks were ordered to be removed from the unit's ledger.

Finally, the Court awarded Mr. McLeod damages for lost rental income for the period the Corporation withheld possession, together with $7,500 in costs.

Takeaways

This decision offers several helpful insights into Saskatchewan condominium law, as much of the statutory interplay at issue had not previously been judicially considered. Key points in this decision include:

1. A writ of possession under section 80 of the CPA is a targeted remedy against a problem tenant, not a standing right to control the unit.
2. Chargebacks must be documented and tied to the specific unit or its occupants.
3. Section 63 of the CPA provides lien enforcement tools, not a licence to withhold possession as leverage.
4. Boards and property managers should watch for conflicts of interest; anything resembling self-dealing will draw close scrutiny in an oppression analysis.

Questions about condominium disputes, governance, chargebacks, or enforcement issues?

Whether you're a condominium corporation, board member, property manager, or unit owner, our team can help you understand your rights and obligations under Saskatchewan condominium legislation.

Contact Taylor to discuss condominium governance, bylaw enforcement, lien issues, tenant disputes, and other real estate-related matters.

Learn more about our Real Estate and Land Development services.

About the Author:

Taylor L. Wilcox is an associate lawyer in the Saskatoon office. He practices primarily in the areas of civil litigation, construction law, and foreclosure matters. Taylor also has experience in residential real estate, cannabis law and corporate commercial law. Taylor holds specific knowledge with regards to condominium law and is a member of the Canadian Condominium Institute – North Saskatchewan chapter.

About McKercher LLP:

For 100 years, McKercher LLP has grown deep roots across Saskatchewan, serving the community from offices in Saskatoon and Regina. Now, as one of the province’s largest and most established full-service law firms, we proudly carry on this legacy – following a client-first philosophy as we provide legal services and real solutions for the people who rely on us.

This post is for information purposes only and should not be taken as legal opinions on any specific facts or circumstances. Counsel should be consulted concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions you may have.

Related Articles:

Costs of Foreclosure in Saskatchewan: What’s Recoverable – and What’s Not

Condominium Insurance and Liability Considerations

Understanding Condominium Insurance Requirements: Am I Responsible?

Condominium Fee Arrears: The Foreclosure Remedy

What To Expect When a Unit Owner Fails To Pay Condominium Fees