Andrea Lusk

The applicant brought an urgent application in Toronto challenging the deceased's will and seeking dependent's support, after being excluded from the deceased's home in Burlington.

The court, on its own initiative, raised the issue of venue under Rule 13.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding no rational connection to Toronto other than the location of the parties' lawyers, and noting the strain of forum shopping on judicial resources, the court ordered the proceeding transferred to Milton in the Central West judicial region.

The applicant purchased commercial condominium units and subsequently acquired a communication unit without conducting due diligence, such as obtaining a status certificate or performing a title search.

The communication unit was subject to a registered lien for unpaid common expenses.

The applicant sought an oppression remedy, alleging the condominium corporation misled it into purchasing the unit and seeking an order compelling the corporation to take back title without the applicant paying the lien.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant was responsible for its failure to verify title and that the corporation was entitled to enforce its lien before accepting a transfer of the unit.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking access to condominium records.

During the mediation stage, the respondent corporation provided records and stated no further records existed, which the applicant disputed.

The applicant subsequently advised she did not wish to pursue the case to the next stage, resulting in the tribunal closing the case.

The applicant, a condominium owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding persistent debris, including cigarette butts and dog feces, being thrown onto his exclusive use terrace from units above.

The applicant argued this constituted a nuisance and that the respondent condominium corporation failed to adequately investigate and enforce its rules.

The Tribunal found that while the debris was distressing, the respondent had taken reasonable steps to manage the situation by issuing notices and conducting inspections, which reduced the frequency of incidents.

The Tribunal concluded the debris did not currently meet the threshold of a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption under the Condominium Act, 1998, and dismissed the application.

The appellant commercial unit owners sought leave to appeal and to set aside an arbitration award that dismissed their oppression claims against the respondent condominium corporation.

The appellants alleged the respondent failed to enforce its declaration regarding unauthorized business uses.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding that the parties were bound by an arbitration agreement that precluded appeals.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the appellants had a full opportunity to present their case and the arbitrator provided logical and transparent reasons for concluding they failed to prove oppression.

The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment in a failed real estate transaction.

The plaintiffs, Bertus and Diane Nieuwenhuis, sought damages for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale (the "Taunton APS") with the defendant, FRP Inc. The defendant sought the return of its deposit, arguing the agreement became null and void when conditions were not fulfilled or waived.

The court found that neither party was ready, willing, and able to close on the extended closing date, and neither party tendered or reinstated time of the essence.

The agreement was therefore abandoned, and the defendant was entitled to the return of its deposit.

The plaintiffs' claim for damages was dismissed.

The applicant unit owner sought an order from the Condominium Authority Tribunal directing the respondent condominium corporation to provide board meeting minutes and a specific by-law, and requested a penalty for the corporation's refusal to provide them.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was not entitled to draft minutes, the corporation's nearly year-long delay in approving minutes constituted a refusal without a reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty, finding the corporation did not willfully disregard its obligations, but ordered the corporation to provide the approved minutes within a set timeframe and awarded the applicant $200 in costs.

The applicant unit owner brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation, alleging it unreasonably enforced pet rules and attempted to enforce non-existent rules regarding her dog.

The respondent had sent two compliance letters after receiving complaints about the dog urinating on common elements, barking, and wandering onto other owners' exclusive use areas.

The Tribunal found that the respondent acted reasonably in investigating the complaints and sending the letters, and did not attempt to enforce non-existent rules.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, challenged the respondent condominium corporation's visitor parking policy and its enforcement actions against their vehicle.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the policy, which restricted visitor parking and required registration without being formally enacted as a rule under the Condominium Act, 1998, was an improperly implemented rule.

Consequently, the policy and the corporation's actions to enforce it, including ticketing the applicant's vehicle, were invalid and unenforceable.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to cease enforcing the policy until properly enacted and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant sought an order for the forfeiture of a $62,000 deposit from the respondent assignee, Ke Ma, and its release from the brokerage, Homelife Best Choice Realty Inc., Brokerage, following the non-completion of an assignment agreement for a pre-construction property.

The court found that while the applicant failed to fully satisfy a condition precedent (obtaining the vendor's written consent in the required form), the respondent assignee breached her contractual obligation to cooperate by failing to communicate objections to the vendor consent form in a timely manner.

This breach prevented the condition from being cured and fulfilled.

Consequently, the respondent's default led to the forfeiture of the deposit as per the terms of the assignment agreement.

The condominium corporation brought a motion to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the plaintiffs' claims against it, which had previously been stayed in favour of arbitration.

The plaintiffs opposed the appointment, arguing they had not commenced an arbitration and could not be forced to act as plaintiffs.

The court granted the motion and appointed an arbitrator, noting that the condominium corporation was entitled to push forward with the claims made against it to clear its name, and that the arbitrator would determine the process.

The applicant unit owner sought an oppression remedy against the respondent condominium corporation due to excessive noise and vibrations emanating from an adjacent garbage room.

The applicant endured the noise for over a decade while the corporation responded in a delayed and piecemeal fashion, eventually halting approved remediation work when the application was commenced.

The court found that while the applicant did not provide expert evidence to prove the corporation's proposed remediation plan was inadequate, the corporation's inexcusable delay and retaliatory stoppage of work unfairly disregarded the applicant's interests.

The court awarded $30,000 in damages for oppression and ordered the corporation to complete the approved remediation work.

The defendant, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1255 (MTCC 1255), brought a motion to stay an action commenced by 23 St. Thomas Inc. and Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1271 (MTCC 1271) in favour of mandatory arbitration under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court found that the pith and substance of MTCC 1271's claims related to the interpretation and application of the Reciprocal Agreement and Indemnity Agreement, making them arbitrable.

Consequently, MTCC 1271's claims were stayed.

However, the court declined to stay 23 St. Thomas Inc.'s claims, as it was not a party to the agreements and there was insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil.

The motion was granted in part, with an arbitrator appointed for the arbitrable claims.

The applicant beneficiary objected to the passing of accounts and sought to remove the estate trustee, her brother.

She also objected to the estate trustee's compensation and property management fees paid to their sister.

The court found the accounts met the standard of ordinary care and diligence, the property management fees were reasonable, and the estate trustee's compensation of $267,859.96 was fair based on the Laing Estate factors.

The application to remove the trustee was abandoned, and the accounts were approved as submitted with costs awarded against the applicant.

The defendant condominium corporation brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' action against it pending mediation and arbitration under the Condominium Act, 1998 and the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The plaintiffs opposed the stay, arguing that the claims against the condominium corporation were intertwined with the claims against the developer and that bifurcating the proceedings would cause duplication and inconsistent verdicts.

The court found that while bifurcation was unreasonable and risked multiplicity, recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence mandated a stay under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, as no statutory exceptions applied.

The motion to stay was granted.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the applicant's main application.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $35,985.

The applicant argued for no costs, citing the court's previous finding of shared blame and the respondent's earlier inaction.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1), determined that while the unsuccessful applicant should pay some costs, the quantum should be significantly reduced due to the respondent's contribution to the dispute and the applicant's uncompromising stance.

The court fixed costs at $12,500, inclusive of tax and disbursements.

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.

The defendant brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for unpaid invoices dating from 2007 to 2012, arguing they were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff, a receiver who acquired the assets of the original creditor, argued the claims were not discoverable due to poor record-keeping and alleged part payments.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the claims were discoverable by 2012 and that the defendant had paid his accounts annually, meaning no part payments extended the limitation period.

A secondary motion to strike the claim for late appointment of counsel was dismissed.

This was a costs endorsement following the plaintiff's complete success in enforcing compliance obligations under a co-ownership agreement after the defendant failed to comply with a fire inspection order posing a documented health and safety risk.

The court held that the contractual default provision required the co-owner in default to pay the corporation's losses, liabilities, and reasonable legal costs on a solicitor-and-client basis.

Applying Rule 57.01 together with the agreement, the court awarded the plaintiff full indemnity costs inclusive of HST.

The court emphasized that other co-owners should not bear the expense caused by the defendant's non-compliance.

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.