Arman Alemi

The applicant condominium corporation applied under section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998 for an order prohibiting the respondent from occupying or visiting her mother's condominium unit and the building's common elements.

The applicant alleged that the respondent engaged in a campaign of harassment, threats, and intimidation against condominium staff and residents, and raised concerns regarding the elder abuse of her mother, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease.

The respondent's sisters, acting as co-attorneys for their mother, supported the application, noting that the respondent had restricted their access to their mother and exhibited abusive behaviour.

The Court found that the respondent's behaviour breached the Condominium Act and the corporation's governing documents.

Accordingly, the Court granted the application, permanently barring the respondent from occupying or visiting the unit and the common elements.

This costs endorsement followed a motion where the Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their Statement of Claim, a motion unopposed by the Defendants except on the issue of costs.

The Defendants sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis, while the Plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs.

The court found that the Plaintiffs' conduct, characterized by delay and inadvertence, caused the Defendants to incur unnecessary costs, but did not warrant substantial indemnity.

The Master determined that the Defendants' claimed hours and quantum were disproportionate given the nature of the amendments.

Ultimately, the Plaintiffs were ordered to pay fixed costs of $7,000 to the Defendants.

The defendant abandoned a summary judgment motion on the eve of argument after the plaintiffs had repeatedly warned that credibility issues required a trial.

The plaintiffs sought costs for the abandoned motion.

The court found that the defendant acted unreasonably in bringing and pursuing the motion, which stood virtually no chance of success, and awarded the plaintiffs costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court also allowed a small set-off for the defendant's costs of responding to the plaintiffs' tactical cross-motion, which was also abandoned.

The plaintiffs were awarded net costs of $37,000.