Ava Naraghi

In an estates dispute over jointly held property alleged to be held on resulting trust for the deceased's estate, the moving party sought summary judgment dismissing the trust claim as statute-barred and extending that ruling to a related passing of accounts application.

The court held that summary judgment is not available in an application, applying the Court of Appeal's direction that Rule 20 is restricted to actions.

The court further declined to convert the matter into a partial hearing of substantive issues, finding that piecemeal adjudication would be disproportionate given the overlap between the trust claim, the estate trustee's accounting obligations, and potential breach of duty issues.

The limitation issue was left for determination at a joint hearing of both applications, and costs were deferred.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent owner to comply with parking rules by removing a stored vehicle from her assigned spot and ceasing to park a second vehicle in a visitor parking space.

The respondent argued she required the visitor space as a disability-related accommodation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was improperly storing a vehicle in her assigned spot contrary to the rules.

Furthermore, while the respondent established a mobility-related disability, she failed to demonstrate a specific disability-related need to use the visitor parking space instead of her assigned spot.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the parking rules and awarded costs to the applicant.

The decision concerns the administration of the estate of Faina Rogovsky, focusing on the removal of the estate trustee, the passing of accounts, and the determination of trustee compensation.

The court dismissed the application to remove Josef Rogovsky as estate trustee, approved the interim passing of accounts with modifications, and fixed trustee compensation at $32,000 plus HST.

The court also addressed the parties' disputes over loans, asset valuations, and the conduct of the estate administration, emphasizing the need for clarity, prudence, and fairness in estate management.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Aurora Official Plan, 2024.

The Tribunal granted party status to Allaura Limited Partnership, 16 20 22 Allaura Blvd Inc., and Macont Developments Inc. on consent.

The parties indicated an interest in Tribunal-led mediation, and the Appellants agreed to provide a draft issues list to the Town to facilitate instructions from Town Council.

A second Case Management Conference was not scheduled pending the outcome of mediation efforts.

The respondent in a condominium dispute brought a motion requesting an indefinite adjournment of the hearing due to an emergency surgery and ongoing medical issues.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal denied the request, noting that the medical documentation provided did not meet the minimum standards set out in the Tribunal's Practice Direction and that the respondent had demonstrated the ability to maintain multiple other legal proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the case to resume and extended a prior confidentiality order to the motion materials.

The respondent in a condominium dispute brought a motion for a further adjournment, submitting three doctor's notes.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the first note provided no new information and the request was an abuse of process as the issue had already been decided.

The Tribunal noted that the second note regarding accessible parking was evidence for the substantive hearing, and the third note regarding written communication was an accommodation request that the Tribunal already meets.

The Tribunal ordered the case to resume and directed that the respondent's medical submissions remain confidential.

The respondent in a condominium parking dispute brought a motion requesting an indefinite adjournment of the proceedings due to medical reasons.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal denied the request, finding that an indefinite adjournment would cause significant delay and prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal noted that its written process and the ability to appoint a representative could accommodate the respondent's disability, and ordered the case to resume.

The respondent in a condominium parking dispute brought a motion seeking a confidentiality order, dismissal of the case, or an adjournment.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal granted the confidentiality order on consent, finding the personal and medical information met the required standard.

The tribunal declined to dismiss the case, finding it was not a minor issue and had a reasonable prospect of success.

A partial adjournment was granted to allow the respondent time to prepare and participate in the process.

The applicant, a condominium owner, submitted a request for records to the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent agreed to provide some records at no cost, some at a cost, and refused others.

The Tribunal found that the respondent refused to provide certain records without a reasonable excuse, although the applicant's voluminous requests contributed to overwhelming the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested records, pay a penalty of $275, and pay costs of $125.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring a unit owner and her tenant to comply with the corporation's rules respecting noise.

The corporation received numerous complaints about yelling, screaming, and banging emanating from the unit.

Neither the owner nor the tenant participated in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the tenant's conduct constituted a nuisance and violated section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal also found that the owner failed to take reasonable steps to ensure her tenant's compliance, violating section 119(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to cease the disruptive behavior, ordered the owner to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance, and awarded costs of $7,400.81 against them jointly and severally.

The applicant unit owner sought records from the respondent condominium corporation regarding the cleanliness, security, and maintenance of common elements.

The respondent argued the request was an improper fishing expedition and quoted a fee of over $15,000 to produce the records, primarily due to the cost of reviewing thousands of emails.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the records, as the request was reasonably specific and related to his interests as an owner.

However, the Tribunal found the estimated fee for email production was unreasonable, resulting partly from the corporation's inefficient record-keeping practices and partly from the applicant's refusal to narrow search terms.

The Tribunal reduced the total fee to approximately $8,500 and ordered the corporation to produce the records upon payment, while reimbursing the applicant's filing fee.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that she experienced unreasonable noise from the unit above hers following a renovation and that the condominium corporation failed to enforce its flooring rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal reviewed acoustical testing reports and noise logs, concluding that the evidence did not establish the noise was unreasonable or constituted a nuisance.

The Tribunal also found that the condominium corporation acted reasonably in investigating the complaints and working with the upstairs owner to mitigate potential noise sources, thereby complying with its rules.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought a motion to add issues relating to a smoking dispute to his existing application for condominium records.

The respondent condominium corporation opposed the motion, arguing the smoking dispute was unrelated and outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the records request and the smoking dispute were not sufficiently interwoven to justify joining them in a single hearing, as they involved different evidence, witnesses, and jurisdictional considerations.

The applicant made a request for condominium records from the respondent corporation.

The parties agreed to settle the case during Stage 2 mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order resolving the dispute and closing the case with no opportunity to reopen.

The applicant in a condominium noise dispute brought a motion to file a late acoustical report after the document disclosure deadline had passed.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing prejudice and delay, while the intervenor did not object.

The Tribunal applied the test for late evidence, finding that while the report could have been obtained earlier, its potential probative value regarding whether the noise was unreasonable justified its admission.

The Tribunal granted the motion, noting that the respondent would not be unduly prejudiced and could request an adjournment to respond.

The applicants submitted two applications to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records dispute and a noise nuisance.

The Tribunal proposed to join the applications under section 1.37(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Applying the balance of convenience factors, the Tribunal found the issues were intertwined and joining them would save costs and time.

The Tribunal ordered the cases merged.

The respondent condominium corporation sought an order requiring the moving party unit owners to sell their unit or comply with the condominium's rules following a series of disputes between neighbours.

The moving parties moved to stay the application, arguing the dispute must first be mediated and arbitrated pursuant to s. 132(4) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court found that the core of the dispute related to the condominium's declaration, by-laws, and rules, rather than statutory breaches of ss. 117 and 119 that would bypass arbitration.

The court granted the motion and stayed the application pending mediation and arbitration, awarding costs to the moving parties.