Benjamin Rutherford

The applicant condominium corporations sought declarations of ownership, breach of trust, and oppression against the developer regarding a community clubhouse.

The developer had retained ownership of the clubhouse, subject to a mortgage, pending the sale of all remaining units and lands in the project, as set out in the disclosure statements.

The court dismissed the application, finding no trust relationship, no breach of the obligation to convey the clubhouse since the condition precedent had not been met, and no oppressive conduct by the developer in its management, mortgaging, or fee-charging for the clubhouse.

Following an application and counter-application concerning the disqualification of a condominium director after an ethics review, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant succeeded in having the disqualification set aside but failed to obtain a declaration that a condominium by-law provision was invalid and was not reinstated as a director pending a fresh ethics review.

The respondents successfully resisted part of the application but failed entirely on their counter-application.

The court held that the case reflected divided success, though it criticized the respondent corporation’s ethics review process as unfair for failing to disclose the substance of the allegations in advance.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered that no costs be payable by either party.