Antoni G. Casalinuovo

The appellant condominium owner appealed a summary judgment ordering it to pay $495,888.39 in common expense arrears and granting vacant possession to the respondent condominium corporation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's use of enhanced fact-finding powers to resolve credibility issues and reject the appellant's claim of having paid in cash.

The Court also declined to entertain a new limitations defence raised for the first time on appeal.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred by using the oppression remedy to expand the respondent's registered condominium lien to cover unsecured arrears, as doing so could prejudice third-party creditors.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1067 (MTCC 1067) against 1388020 Ontario Corp. (BSA) for arrears of common expenses, rejecting BSA’s defence that it paid in cash under alleged side agreements.

The court found BSA’s evidence not credible, held that the statutory regime under the Condominium Act could not be contracted out of, and ordered vacant possession of the units to MTCC 1067 to permit sale under the lien.

The court also found BSA’s conduct to be oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to other unit owners.

The appellants, condominium unit owners, appealed a Superior Court order that enforced a non-smoking rule against them and terminated their "Grandfather Agreement" which had previously allowed them to smoke in their unit under certain conditions.

They also sought leave to appeal a substantial costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence or unfair treatment by the application judge.

The court denied leave to adduce fresh evidence, concluding it would not have affected the original outcome.

Leave to appeal costs was also denied, with the court affirming the application judge's costs award and fixing appeal costs.

Following the dismissal of its application to prevent the re-leasing of disputed lands, the applicant condominium corporation argued it should be relieved of costs because the matter was in the public interest and involved consumer protection.

The court rejected these arguments, holding that condominium corporations are subject to the standard costs regime.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondents, declining to award substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted monetary offer to settle because the application sought non-monetary relief.

Costs were fixed at $58,655.44 for two respondents and $35,008.44 for the third.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed her motion to set aside a prior consent dismissal order.

The respondents moved to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant could not appeal a consent order without leave under s. 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Furthermore, the order dismissing the motion to set aside the consent order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore could not be appealed to the Divisional Court under s. 31 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was quashed without costs.

The applicant, York Condominium Corporation No. 76 (YCC76), sought to invalidate a lease amendment concerning "Disputed Lands" within the Crescent Town development.

YCC76 claimed a leasehold interest in the lands and alleged that the amendment, which released the lands in exchange for $500,000, was improperly approved by the board of Crescent Town Club Inc. (CTC) and constituted oppression.

The court dismissed YCC76's application, finding that YCC76 had no leasehold interest in the Disputed Lands, the board's approval was valid under the Ontario Not For Profit Corporations Act, 2010, and the lease did not require unanimous consent from YCC76.

Furthermore, the court determined it lacked broad jurisdiction to grant an oppression remedy under the ONCA, and even if it did, YCC76 failed to prove oppression or actual prejudice.

This appeal concerns a dispute between two condominium corporations regarding the cost of replacing shared electrical infrastructure (electric switchgear or ESG).

The appellant, Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 656 (656), refused to contribute to the replacement cost, arguing that the ESG was the property of the respondent, Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 519 (519), and its maintenance was 519's sole responsibility under their respective Declarations and the Condominium Act, 1998. 519 had successfully brought an application based on unjust enrichment, arguing that 656 would be enriched by continuing to receive electricity without contributing, 519 would be deprived, and there was no juristic reason for the enrichment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that all elements of unjust enrichment were met, specifically agreeing that neither the Condominium Act nor 519's Declaration imposed a statutory obligation on 519 to maintain the ESG for 656's benefit without compensation, and that the absence of a cost-sharing agreement did not constitute a juristic reason to justify the enrichment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order compelling the respondent unit owners to allow access to their penthouse unit so contractors could repair an adjacent common element riser.

The respondents refused access, arguing the situation was not an exigent health and safety issue and seeking mediation under s. 132 of the Condominium Act.

The court found that s. 132 does not mandate mediation for disagreements under the Act, and that the corporation had a duty to repair the failing risers to prevent water damage under s. 117(1).

The application was granted, and the respondents were ordered to pay the remobilization costs and full indemnity costs of the application.

The applicants brought a motion for consent orders to discharge construction liens and direct the return of security paid into court.

The court refused to grant the relief due to significant deficiencies in the motion materials and the proposed draft order.

These deficiencies included incorrect legal terminology (e.g., referring to discharge of a "Claim for Construction Lien" instead of a "lien"), failure to provide updated parcel registers to address sheltering liens, an improper preamble in the draft order, and an incorrect provision for the return of security that contravened Section 46(4) of the Construction Act.

The court emphasized the need for counsel to be meticulous in drafting and noted the waste of judicial resources caused by such carelessness.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful application by Halton Condominium Corporation No. 61 (HCC 61) to enforce its non-smoking rule against the respondents.

HCC 61 sought full indemnity costs of $87,377.16 or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs of $70,900.62.

The respondents argued for no costs or a lower scale.

The court awarded HCC 61 costs on an enhanced but not full indemnity basis, totaling $70,476.66, considering HCC 61's full success, their reasonable offer to settle, the Condominium Act's provisions for cost recovery, and the respondents' unreasonable conduct.

Halton Condominium Corporation No. 61 (HCC 61) brought an application under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998, to enforce its non-smoking rule against the Respondents, Nikolay Kolarovaliev and Borislava Borissova.

The Respondents, who were "grandfathered" under the rule, were accused of continuously breaching their Grandfathering Agreement by allowing smoke to emanate from their unit into common areas and adjacent units.

Despite HCC 61's attempts at mediation and remediation, the issue persisted.

The court found that the Respondents repeatedly violated the Grandfathering Agreement and that their claims of political motivation were unfounded.

The court granted the application, terminating the Grandfathering Agreement and prohibiting smoking within Unit 801, allowing it only outside the building at a distance of at least nine meters from all doorways, operable windows, and air intakes.

This costs endorsement addresses the "sunk/wasted" costs incurred by the respondent, Leeds Standard Condominium Corporation No. 41 (LSCC 41), in an application that was stayed pending arbitration.

The court had previously awarded $30,000 in partial indemnity costs and remained seized for any outstanding costs not covered by the arbitration.

LSCC 41 sought an additional $64,797.63, arguing minimal reuse of application materials in the arbitration.

The applicant, Tall Ships Landing Developments, contended there was significant reuse.

The court found substantial overlap in materials and allegations, rejecting LSCC 41's premise.

Applying the principle of reasonableness, the court fixed LSCC 41's additional "sunk/wasted" costs, including costs for the current submissions, at an all-inclusive amount of $15,000.

The applicant condominium corporation sought approval of an administrator's reports, extension of his term, recovery of additional expenses incurred due to respondents' non-compliance with a prior order, and costs for two motions.

The court approved the administrator's extension and reports, ordered the non-compliant respondents to bear the additional expenses of $62,543.55, and awarded costs to the applicant on a full indemnity basis for the urgent motion ($25,809.20) and partial indemnity for the June motion ($2,750.00), all payable pro-rata by the non-compliant unit owners.

The court also allowed the applicant to use the lien mechanism under the Condominium Act for recovery.

A dispute between a condominium unit owner (Rahman) and the condominium corporation (PSCC No. 779) regarding accessible parking and alleged discrimination escalated into multiple legal proceedings.

In this action, Rahman moved for summary judgment, while the Corporation cross-moved to strike his claim as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, or alternatively, to stay the action pending other proceedings.

The court dismissed the Corporation's motion to strike but granted its motion to stay the action, rendering Rahman's summary judgment motion moot.

The court criticized the Corporation's aggressive litigation approach and Rahman's intemperate conduct, declining to award costs to the Corporation despite its partial success.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal decision that allowed the respondent unitholder to park in designated accessible parking spaces and awarded him $1,500 in damages.

The appellant argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the parking dispute was connected to broader harassment claims falling under the section 117 carveout of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the parking issue was severable and within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction.

The court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the unitholder was entitled to use the accessible spaces, the condominium could not charge back its enforcement costs, and the damages award was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed without costs due to the respondent's vexatious conduct during the hearing.

A condominium corporation brought an urgent motion to enforce compliance with a prior consent order regarding the restoration of common element attic spaces.

The respondents, unit owners, resisted the removal of attic hatch ladders, arguing they were outside the scope of the order.

The court clarified that the removal of these ladders was essential for structural integrity and municipal compliance, as they compromised the roof trusses.

The court mandated compliance with the original order, confirming the scope included ladder removal, and granted the corporation the right to use security and locksmiths for access.

While declining to make a contempt finding immediately, the court reserved the right to reconsider it.

Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 519 (CCC 519) brought an application seeking to compel Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 656 (OCC 656) and Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 522 (CCC 522) to share the costs of replacing a critical electric switchgear (ESG) located on CCC 519's property but serving all three condominiums.

CCC 522 agreed to contribute, but OCC 656 refused, arguing its declaration did not require it and CCC 519 was responsible for its common areas.

The court applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment, finding OCC 656 had been incontrovertibly benefited and failed to establish a juristic reason for retaining the benefit without contributing.

The court rejected the argument that the absence of a cost-sharing agreement constituted a juristic reason.

The application was granted, requiring both respondents to share costs equitably, with a reference directed for cost apportionment if necessary.

The applicant condominium corporation sought relief under sections 113 and 135 of the Condominium Act, alleging that the respondent declarant failed to adequately disclose the provisions of a Shared Amenities Agreement (SAA) and that the SAA's operation was oppressive.

The court found that while the declarant failed to disclose that future phases of the development would not proceed, the applicant did not prove this non-disclosure produced an oppressive or unconscionably prejudicial result.

The court dismissed the oppression claims, noting the applicant had withheld its share of expenses for over five years and should utilize the SAA's arbitration mechanism to resolve its operational disputes.

The appellant's defamation action against the respondents was dismissed on a summary judgment motion by the Superior Court, which found the action statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming the motion judge's finding that the appellant failed to adduce credible evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue requiring trial regarding the commencement of the limitation period.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's procedural rulings, noting the appellant's failure to properly pursue remedies for refusal to cross-examine or to bring a formal motion for leave to amend her statement of claim.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $2,898.45.