Andrea C. Lusk

The applicant condominium owner sought an oppression remedy against the respondent condominium corporation, alleging it failed to adequately address her complaints about noise from a neighbouring unit's balcony.

The court found that while the neighbour was inconsiderate, the corporation had acted reasonably by investigating complaints, sending demand letters, and ultimately reaching a settlement agreement with the neighbour to restrict noise.

The application was dismissed as the corporation's conduct did not amount to oppression or unfair disregard of the applicant's interests.

Following dismissal of an application under ss. 134 and 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998 challenging the validity of proxy votes and the election of a condominium board, the successful respondent corporation sought substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant unit owner argued that each party should bear their own costs or alternatively that she should receive partial indemnity costs under rule 57.01(2).

The court held that although the corporation was successful on the merits, deficiencies in the corporation’s record‑keeping contributed to the confusion surrounding voter eligibility and gave rise to the litigation.

Given the legitimate governance concerns raised by the applicant and the broader interest of unit owners, it would be unfair to require her to pay the corporation’s costs.

However, the applicant was also not entitled to costs because she continued the application after receiving information that her complaint would not affect the election result and declined a without‑costs withdrawal offer.

A condominium unit owner applied under ss. 134 and 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998 to annul the results of a requisitioned owners’ meeting that removed the board of directors.

The applicant alleged the meeting chair improperly permitted proxies from owners allegedly in arrears contrary to s. 49(1) of the Act and argued the process was oppressive and unfairly prejudicial.

The court held that the chair of the meeting was the proper authority to determine the eligibility of disputed proxies and found no bad faith in her rulings.

After reviewing the evidence regarding disputed proxies, the court concluded that at most three votes were improperly counted, insufficient to affect the outcome of the removal vote.

The meeting was properly conducted and the applicant failed to establish non‑compliance with the Act or oppression.