Antoni G. Casalinuovo

The applicants filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging that the respondents breached a settlement agreement regarding age restrictions in condominium recreational facilities.

A security guard prevented the applicants' child from using the billiard room, contrary to the amended rules.

The Tribunal found that the respondents breached the settlement and exacerbated the harm by failing to investigate the incident, ignoring the applicants' complaints, and blaming the applicants.

The Tribunal awarded the applicants $5,000 in general damages for the emotional impact and damage to their dignity.

Following an appeal that upheld a contempt finding against a condominium board but varied the sanction, the Court of Appeal addressed the costs of the underlying contempt motion.

The motion judge had awarded $109,598 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal found that the board's conduct, while contemptuous, did not warrant elevated costs as it was not motivated by personal gain or vengeance.

The costs award was reduced to $35,000 on a partial indemnity scale, payable jointly and severally by the condominium corporation and the individual board members.

A condominium corporation brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt and enforcement of a prior judgment requiring a unit owner to remove two dogs from his unit.

The respondent admitted he had not complied with the earlier order and sought an adjournment pending his motion to set aside that judgment.

The court held that a court order remains binding and enforceable unless and until it is set aside or overturned on appeal.

The respondent’s request for an adjournment was denied, and the court granted enforcement relief allowing entry to remove the dogs if necessary.

Costs were awarded to the condominium corporation.

Condominium directors and the corporation appealed a finding of civil contempt arising from landscaping work that departed from an earlier endorsement requiring restoration of the condominium podium to its original design after garage repairs.

The majority held that, read in context, the endorsement was clear and unambiguous, that the appellants understood their obligations, and that they wilfully breached the order notwithstanding their asserted statutory authority under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court upheld the restoration order but varied the sanction, holding that the motion judge erred in principle by focusing on shifting restoration costs away from unit owners rather than on deterrence, and by imposing a very substantial financial burden without evidence of ability to pay.

The order requiring the individual directors to bear restoration costs personally was set aside and replaced with fines of $7,500 each; indemnification under s. 38 was unavailable.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed their Application for Contravention of Settlement without a full hearing.

The original decision found the alleged breach of settlement regarding condominium rules to be de minimis.

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration request, finding that the Tribunal had unfairly relied on disputed facts and the respondents' version of events without hearing evidence.

A full hearing on the merits was ordered.

Unit owners applied for a compliance order requiring a condominium corporation to call a meeting of owners after receiving requisition forms seeking a vote on proposed alterations to common elements.

The corporation refused to call the meeting, asserting the requisition was invalid because it consisted of multiple counterpart forms and many owners printed rather than cursively signed their names.

The court held that the Condominium Act, 1998 is remedial legislation requiring a liberal interpretation and does not require a requisition to be contained in a single document or signed in cursive writing.

Printed names constitute valid signatures and counterpart documents may collectively form a requisition.

The requisition satisfied the statutory requirement that owners of at least 15 percent of the units request the meeting.

The corporation was ordered to convene the meeting pursuant to ss. 46 and 97(3) of the Act.

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.

The applicants filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement, alleging the respondents breached a prior settlement agreement when a security guard temporarily prohibited children from using a condominium billiard room.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the security guard's actions were based on a temporary mistaken belief that was quickly corrected when the applicants provided proof of the rule change.

The Tribunal concluded that the alleged breach was de minimis and dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

A condominium corporation brought a motion seeking an order requiring a unit owner to sell her condominium unit due to persistent and serious misconduct in the building.

Evidence established repeated violent incidents and intolerable behaviour affecting residents, many of whom were senior citizens.

The respondent failed to appear despite being served multiple times.

Applying the principles governing enforcement under the Condominium Act, the court found a breach of s. 117 and concluded that the respondent’s behaviour was incorrigible and unmanageable.

The court ordered the forced sale of the unit under s. 134 and awarded full indemnity costs to the condominium corporation.

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.