Antoni G. Casalinuovo

The applicant, a condominium owner, submitted a records request for incident reports about himself.

The respondent condominium corporation refused the request, citing the exemption for records related to actual or contemplated litigation under section 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the requested records were directly related to an ongoing arbitration between the parties regarding the applicant's alleged behaviour.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding the respondent was justified in refusing the records.

The Tribunal declined to award costs to either party due to inappropriate conduct by both sides during the proceedings.

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.

The applicant condominium corporation sought judicial review of a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision regarding an accessible parking dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to exhaust its statutory right of appeal under the Condominium Act.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review is not available where an adequate alternative remedy, such as a statutory appeal on questions of law, exists.

The applicant condominium corporation appealed an arbitrator's preliminary ruling that he had jurisdiction to determine whether the respondents' conduct was oppressive under s. 135 of the Condominium Act.

The applicant argued that oppression claims must be brought before the Superior Court of Justice and cannot be arbitrated.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator was correct in concluding that s. 135 does not oust an arbitrator's jurisdiction to consider oppressive conduct if the dispute falls within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement.

Costs decision following mirror-image applications concerning a dispute over the use and maintenance of a commercial condominium unit.

The court found divided success, as the applicant prevailed on the principal issue regarding a waterproofing membrane, but the respondent prevailed on several subsidiary issues.

The court also considered the applicant's refusal to participate in mediation.

The court ordered each party to bear its own costs and declined to relieve the applicant of its obligation to contribute to the respondent's legal fees through its share of common element expenses, noting this would breach s. 84 of the Condominium Act.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The action arose from a 2013 contractual dispute over HVAC services.

The plaintiff's counsel experienced a series of severe personal and professional crises, including the death of a colleague, illness, and a ransomware attack, which caused significant delay.

The court found the delay was not intentional and that the defendant failed to establish a substantial risk to a fair trial, noting the defendant's own failure to preserve evidence.

The motion to dismiss was denied and the action was permitted to proceed.

Cross-applications regarding the responsibility for repairing a waterproofing membrane in a commercial parking garage unit of a condominium.

The unit owner, Landont, argued the membrane was part of the common element concrete slab.

The condominium corporation, FCC 11, argued it was part of the unit and that Landont caused the damage by failing to maintain the unit.

The court held that the membrane was integrated into the concrete slab and thus formed part of the common elements, making FCC 11 responsible for its repair.

However, the court upheld FCC 11's decision to power wash the unit and charge the cost to Landont, as Landont had a duty to maintain the unit to mitigate wear and tear.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed the trial judge's factual findings on an off-set issue and the costs disposition.

The respondent cross-appealed on costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the off-set issue, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

However, the Court allowed the appellant's costs appeal and dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, as the parties agreed the trial judge erred in principle by determining success on a distributive-costs basis.

The matter was remitted to the trial judge to determine the quantum of costs.

Following the disposition of the appeal, the Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement.

The successful respondents were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant was ordered to pay $6,375.58 to the respondent university and $6,000 to the respondent professional corporation and individual.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her action against the respondent university under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellant sought to relitigate issues regarding her law school transcript that had been previously dismissed in civil and human rights proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the action was an abusive relitigation and barred by cause of action estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule the hearing of an appeal from a decision of the Condominium Authority of Ontario.

The court directed that the appeal proceed before a three-judge panel via ZOOM videoconference and provided procedural directions for the electronic filing of appeal materials, factums, and costs submissions.

The appellant, a commercial tenant, commenced a Superior Court action against its former landlord and another tenant for breach of contract and various torts.

The motion judge struck the claim as an abuse of process because the issues were substantially the same as two small claims actions the appellant had already commenced against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the actions were substantially the same and constituted an abuse of process.

The court also upheld the motion judge's award of substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant, a condominium corporation, sought to appeal a motion judge's decision staying its action in favour of arbitration.

The respondents moved to quash the appeal on the basis that it was barred by section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The Court of Appeal allowed the motion to quash, finding that the appeal was statutorily barred.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments that it was denied natural justice and that the pith and substance of its claim was an oppression remedy under the Condominium Act that could not be precluded by arbitration clauses.

The court found that the motion judge correctly applied the test for determining whether claims fell within the scope of arbitration clauses and that the arbitrator could determine its own jurisdiction.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested copies of legal invoices referencing his unit from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent refused, claiming solicitor-client and litigation privilege, and statutory exemptions under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had waived privilege by disclosing the total amount of the legal fees and the general nature of the advice in a letter to all owners.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested records, subject to redactions for the specific legal advice given, upon payment of a $66.80 production fee.

No costs or penalties were awarded.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment seeking vacant possession of the defendant's unit to enforce a condominium lien.

The lien arose after the defendant's tenant unsuccessfully sued the corporation, resulting in costs awards and legal fees being added to the unit's common expenses pursuant to the Condominium Act and the corporation's by-laws.

The defendant, an elderly self-represented woman, argued she was not properly served and should not be responsible for her tenant's unauthorized actions.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the corporation properly served the defendant at her address for service and strictly complied with the Condominium Act.

The court held that the legislation mandates adding such costs to the common expenses to protect other unit owners, and granted the corporation possession of the unit to sell it and recover the outstanding arrears.

This decision addresses a motion to vary or set aside a publication ban initially issued ex parte in an application concerning the appointment of an Administrator and Inspector for a condominium corporation.

The ban was sought due to threats of physical harm against former board members and affiants.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) intervened, arguing for the complete setting aside of the ban, citing freedom of the press.

The court balanced the litigants' Charter rights to security of the person against the freedom of expression, applying the Dagenais/Mentuk test.

The court found a real and substantial risk of harm, concluding that the modified publication ban, which redacts names of the applicant and affiants, should remain in place to ensure the proper administration of justice and the safety of those involved.

The defendants, Tall Ships Landing Developments Inc. and Simon Fuller, brought a motion to stay the proceeding commenced by the plaintiff, Leeds Standard Condominium Corporation No. 41, in favour of arbitration.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to convert a previously commenced application into an action and consolidate it.

The court granted the defendants' motion to stay, finding that the pith and substance of the dispute related to alleged non-compliance with or fairness of the Shared Facilities Agreement and Shared Amenities Agreement, which fell within the scope of the contractual dispute resolution clause requiring mediation and arbitration.

The court emphasized the strong judicial favour for enforcing arbitration agreements and the "competence-competence principle." Consequently, the plaintiff's cross-motion and the defendants' alternative motions to strike or for particulars were not addressed.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.