Benjamin J. Rutherford

The appellants, Enhanced Care Pharmacy and 2819826 Ontario Inc., appealed an order directing them to cease pharmacy operations in a condominium building.

The respondents, World Medpharm Inc., held an exclusive right to operate a pharmacy in the building, granted by an Exclusive Use Agreement and enforced by a Declaration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the appellants were aware of the prohibition, the respondents had standing to enforce the declaration, and there was no basis to exercise discretion to relieve the appellants from compliance.

The court found no error in the application judge's rejection of arguments regarding the impact on the respondents' business or harm to patients.

The appellants, 2352711 Ontario Inc. and 2819826 Ontario Inc., sought a stay of a compliance order issued by an application judge, which prevented them from operating a pharmacy in a condominium unit without the Declarant's consent.

The motion for a stay was brought under Rule 63.02(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, pending their appeal of the compliance order.

The Court of Appeal applied the three-part test for a stay (serious question, irreparable harm, balance of convenience).

While acknowledging a serious question, the court found no evidence of irreparable harm to the moving parties themselves, distinguishing harm to non-litigants (clinic, patients, public).

The balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

Consequently, the motion for a stay was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding parties.

The applicants, who operate a pharmacy in a condominium building with an exclusive use agreement, sought a compliance order against the respondents for operating a competing pharmacy in a neighbouring condominium building in violation of that building's declaration.

The court granted the compliance order, finding the respondents were in clear breach of the declaration and had attempted to circumvent it.

The court also granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the respondents from taking steps to amend the declaration pending the hearing of cross-applications for oppression remedies.

The condominium corporation was found to have taken reasonable steps to enforce the declaration and was awarded costs against the respondents.

The Defendants, having achieved partial summary judgment in a dispute over condominium unit boundaries and common elements, sought partial indemnity costs of over $100,000.

The Plaintiff, who also achieved partial success on summary judgment, argued for no costs or costs in the cause, asserting that joining all unit owners was necessary and that the adjudication provided clarity for all parties.

The court, acknowledging the divided success and the complex nature of the litigation, determined that an order of no costs was appropriate, finding that the necessity of joining all defendants and the shared benefit of clarifying the issues outweighed the Defendants' arguments for costs.

The plaintiff, owner of a rooftop condominium unit, sued the condominium corporation and other unit owners over the boundaries and exclusive use of common elements (Elevator Landing, Interior Hallway, Roof, South Stairwell) and for torts including trespass and nuisance.

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment.

The court granted partial summary judgment, declaring the Elevator Landing part of the plaintiff's unit, but the Interior Hallway, Roof, and South Stairwell as common elements.

All tort claims against individual unit owners were dismissed.

The applicants sought declarations that short-term leasing was permitted in their condominium corporation (TSCC 2492), an injunction against the corporation preventing such leasing, and an oppression remedy with damages and costs, arguing that TSCC 2492's rule prohibiting leases under six months contradicted its declaration.

The respondent sought dismissal of the application.

The court applied the business judgment rule, finding that the board acted diligently and in good faith, adopting a reasonable interpretation of its declaration and rules.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that the board's rule was not inconsistent with the declaration and that the applicants failed to establish a breach of reasonable expectations or oppressive conduct.

This decision concerns a motion for reconsideration brought by Niagara North Condominium Corporation No. 6 and Simpson Wigle Law LLP, seeking to overturn a previous Court of Appeal decision (2019 ONCA 762) that allowed Jean Temedio to conduct an out-of-time assessment of legal accounts.

The moving parties argued the panel relied on a special circumstance (findings by Taylor J. regarding the reasonableness of legal costs and the corporation's conduct) that was not properly before the court.

The Court of Appeal denied the motion for reconsideration, finding that the reasonableness of accounts was squarely before the court, Taylor J.'s decision was referenced by both parties, and it was not decisive to the original appeal's outcome.

The court also noted that challenges to Taylor J.'s decision constituted an improper collateral attack.

A condominium corporation sought to recover its actual legal costs from a unit owner for pre-litigation correspondence, a compliance proceeding, and appeal-related proceedings.

The unit owner applied for assessment of the legal bills.

The application judge referred only the appeal bills for assessment, finding insufficient special circumstances for the pre-litigation and compliance proceeding bills.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a third party liable to pay legal bills should receive more favourable consideration than the client who received and paid the account.

The court found special circumstances existed due to the corporation's unsuccessful pursuit of an extreme eviction remedy that was criticized by the trial judge, and the significant disparity between the $52,000 in legal fees and the $2,500 costs award.

All bills were referred for assessment.

Unit owners sought an order compelling mediation and arbitration under s.132 of the Condominium Act, 1998 regarding directions issued by the condominium corporation concerning interactions with neighbours, security staff, and board members, and use of common facilities.

The corporation argued the dispute should proceed in court rather than through the Act’s mandatory mediation/arbitration process.

The court held that the impugned directions were minor administrative measures relating to day‑to‑day condominium management and did not give rise to a genuine dispute requiring mediation, arbitration, or litigation.

Applying the de minimis principle, the court concluded the issues were too insignificant to justify legal proceedings.

The application was dismissed with reduced costs payable to the condominium corporation.

Following a summary judgment granting possession of a condominium unit to the plaintiff corporation for unpaid common expenses, the parties disputed the scale and assessment of costs.

The original default was approximately $500, but the claimed arrears grew to over $46,000, largely due to legal fees and interest.

The court ordered the costs to be assessed and held that, despite the condominium declaration stipulating solicitor-client costs, the court retains discretion to award costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court ordered partial indemnity costs due to the disproportionate nature of the legal fees, the corporation's failure to mitigate conflict, and the defendants' earlier offer to settle.

The plaintiff condominium corporation obtained summary judgment for possession and arrears of common expenses against the defendants.

The parties disputed whether the legal costs, which had escalated to over $35,000 on an original default of $500, should be assessed and on what scale.

The court ordered the costs to be referred for assessment.

Despite the condominium declaration providing for solicitor-client costs, the court exercised its discretion to order that the costs be assessed on a partial indemnity scale, citing the disproportionate nature of the fees, the high interest rate charged, and the plaintiff's failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer early in the dispute.