Antoni G. Casalinuovo

The appellant, as estate trustee of the deceased's estate, appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge made several fact-specific discretionary determinations in an unusual factual matrix and that those decisions were entitled to deference.

The court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant, a tenant in a condominium unit, appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against the condominium corporation.

The motion judge found that the appellant lacked standing to sue the corporation regarding alleged non-compliance with the Condominium Act and by-laws, as only the unit owner could authorize such claims.

The motion judge also found that the appellant's other claims consisted of bald allegations lacking particularity or failed to raise a genuine issue for trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to file fresh evidence and upheld the summary judgment, finding no basis for interference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

A condominium corporation passed a by-law to lease four common element parking spaces to each unit owner to address a parking dispute caused by a popular restaurant tenant monopolizing shared parking.

The appellant unit owner, who leased her units to the restaurant, challenged the by-law as invalid, unreasonable, and oppressive.

The application judge dismissed the application.

On appeal, the majority upheld the application judge's decision, finding the by-law valid and reasonable.

However, Justice Weiler dissented, holding the by-law invalid because it effectively created permanent exclusive use common elements without amending the declaration, and unreasonable because there was no evidence supporting an increase from two to four parking spaces per unit and no practical alternative parking existed.

York Condominium Corporation No. 201 (YCC 201) sought leave to appeal an arbitration award and to have it set aside.

The arbitration concerned disputes among three condominium corporations regarding their obligations to fund a shared recreation complex under a shared facilities agreement (SFA).

The Arbitrator had ruled that the SFA did not require audited financial statements or compliance with the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) as preconditions for monthly operating expense payments.

The court found that YCC 201's grounds for appeal raised questions of mixed fact and law, not pure questions of law, and were therefore not appealable under s. 45(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

Alternatively, the Arbitrator's interpretation of the SFA was deemed reasonable.

The application to set aside the award, based on allegations of unfair treatment due to the Arbitrator's procedural rulings, was also dismissed, as the rulings merely determined the scope of an arbitration phase and did not preclude YCC 201 from raising issues later.

The respondent, Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 116 (CCC 116), moved to dismiss an application (the "Lien Application") and a Small Claims Court action initiated by Manorama Sennek due to her persistent failure to comply with interlocutory orders, specifically an order for a capacity assessment.

The court granted the dismissal, finding that Sennek, despite her legal background, consciously and deliberately refused to comply with court orders, leading to excessive legal fees for CCC 116.

The court emphasized the importance of complying with court orders for the proper functioning of the civil justice system.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order from Justice Kershman, which mandated a mental capacity assessment under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The original order was prompted by concerns regarding the applicant's ability to conduct litigation, stemming from perceived bizarre behaviours related to identity, numerous complaints against opposing counsel, and disproportionate legal costs incurred by the respondent.

The applicant argued procedural errors and substantive issues, including a lack of prior notice for the motion and a failure to consider privacy expectations.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions on principles of judicial discretion and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary decision.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, challenged the validity of a by-law passed by the respondent condominium corporation that leased common element parking spaces to unit holders.

The applicant argued the by-law was ultra vires, discriminatory, unreasonable, and oppressive, as it restricted her tenant's (a popular restaurant) access to parking.

The court found the by-law valid under the Condominium Act, not discriminatory, and that the Board's actions were not oppressive, as they were a reasonable response to a parking monopolization issue caused by the applicant's tenant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a Small Claims Court order regarding costs.

The motion for leave to appeal was granted.

The court found that there was a conflicting decision by another judge on the interpretation of condominium declarations concerning liability for legal costs, satisfying Rule 62.02(4)(a).

Additionally, the court found good reason to doubt the correctness of the original order, as the Deputy Judge appeared to have relied on irrelevant considerations (Article X of the condominium declaration) in exercising discretion over costs, potentially exceeding jurisdiction under section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act, thus satisfying Rule 62.02(4)(b).

Two related condominium applications were heard together concerning unpaid common expenses for parking units associated with a residential condominium unit.

The owner relied on an error in the condominium corporation’s status certificate that failed to include common expense amounts for two parking spaces and argued it was bound by the certificate under s. 76 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The corporation sought enforcement under s. 134 of the Act and confirmation of a condominium lien for unpaid common expenses.

The court held that while the status certificate bound the corporation for the fiscal year in which it was issued, it did not relieve the owner from ongoing obligations to contribute to common expenses thereafter.

The lien was confirmed but reduced due to the corporation’s initial error, with limited costs awarded.

Two related condominium applications were heard together concerning unpaid common expenses for parking units associated with a residential condominium unit.

The owner relied on an error in the condominium corporation’s status certificate that failed to include common expense amounts for two parking spaces and argued it was bound by the certificate under s. 76 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The corporation sought enforcement under s. 134 of the Act and confirmation of a condominium lien for unpaid common expenses.

The court held that while the status certificate bound the corporation for the fiscal year in which it was issued, it did not relieve the owner from ongoing obligations to contribute to common expenses thereafter.

The lien was confirmed but reduced due to the corporation’s initial error, with limited costs awarded.

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.