Andrea Lusk

The applicant alleged that the respondents breached a settlement agreement resolving a prior human rights application.

The applicant claimed the respondents failed to adopt policies, complete human rights training in a timely manner, and breached a confidentiality clause.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had complied with the training and policy requirements within a reasonable time.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent condominium corporation breached the confidentiality clause by disclosing the fact that a monetary settlement was paid to a third party, who then announced it at an annual general meeting.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $1,000 in compensation for the breach.

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.