1. Easements for parking, access, interventions and utilities. The EAR should grant both parties the most fundamental rights so that their respective properties can function in harmony with each other. Each party should have the right to access the other party`s property in order to park and access vehicles and to be accessible to pedestrians. For example, customers and employees of a large retailer`s property must park anywhere in the mall (subject to an agreement between the parties to provide special areas for employee parking) and go wherever they want in the mall. For guests of mall residents, the property appears to belong to a party and function as a fully integrated mall. Each party may also need to « link » to the other parties` supply systems, which is more common when the large retailer « binds » the developer`s supply systems for the mall. In addition, the parties may need certain intervention rights if their awnings or foundations interfere very little with the other party`s property. All of the above rights would take the form of « easements » and should be set out in detail in the CSR. These « easements » would effectively allow one party to make non-exclusive use of the other party`s property. This is not only bad news, here is an example of a case where a joint agreement works well. The common areas are shared by a hotel apartment, a condominium restaurant and 2 condominiums.

Over time, there has been a consistent representative of each party and they work together for a common goal. This works well based on a number of thoughtful considerations, such as . B good governance of both residential councils, a long-standing relationship based on trust with the developer and a mandate to do what is fair and equitable. 2. Construction and architectural compatibility. The CSR generally requires the developer to construct all on-site and off-site improvements that include the mall, as well as those that are relevant to buildings located on the developer`s property. The large retailer will be responsible for the construction of the large retailer`s building. The CSR generally provides for each party to review and approve plans and specifications for each party`s work, thus creating architectural compatibility for all construction work in the mall. In addition, the AER generally requires each party to build its upgrades according to a jointly approved construction schedule. The CSR, or a separate development agreement, requires the large retailer to reimburse the developer a fair share of the costs incurred by the developer to build the mall improvements on and off site.

When Ontario`s Condominium Act was first registered in 1968, it had one main purpose: to provide a set of rules and guidelines that would allow owners of a single condominium to live in harmony. However, if more than one condominium corporation shares assets, it causes different condominiums to get along with each other and can be quite difficult. Recent amendments to the Condominium Act (1998) are intended to clarify these commons. The Court noted that nothing in the legislation requires a cost-sharing agreement related to joint services with non-co-owners (another thing that will change with the new amendments to the act). The Court concluded by offering the plaintiffs that they were not without common law remedies such as unjust enrichment and reimbursement, since in the absence of clear contractual provisions to the contrary, the owner of the commercial or retail condominium component would be liable to pay a portion of the cost of the joint services .. . .