Bradley Chaplick

A mortgagee applied for an order discharging a condominium lien after paying the arrears of common expenses and legal costs claimed by the condominium corporation.

Despite receiving payment, the corporation’s counsel refused to discharge the lien, asserting entitlement to additional legal fees allegedly incurred in responding to litigation initiated by the unit owners.

The court held that s. 85 of the Condominium Act only permits recovery of reasonable legal costs and expenses causally connected to collecting the arrears.

The additional fees were inadequately documented, not shown to be reasonable, and largely related to unnecessary or unrelated litigation activity after the arrears had been satisfied.

The court ordered the lien discharged, directed that the claimed expenses be assessed, and invited submissions on potential cost consequences against the law firm under Rule 57.07.

The appellant appealed a decision of the application judge who denied an adjournment, decided the application on the merits, granted a declaration, and awarded costs to the respondent as trustee.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge exercised his discretion reasonably and made no errors.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

A commercial condominium corporation sought a compliance order against a grocery store tenant and its landlord to prevent the display of merchandise on the common element sidewalk.

The application judge granted the compliance order, dismissed the landlord's oppression application, and awarded costs to the condominium corporation.

The landlord and tenant appealed the compliance order, and the condominium corporation cross-appealed the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, finding the limitation period had not expired due to continuous breaches, and upheld the dismissal of the oppression application.

However, the Court allowed the cross-appeal on costs, finding the application judge erred in principle by failing to explain her calculation of 'additional actual costs' under s. 134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and remitted the costs issue for reconsideration.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing, citing recent retention of counsel, delayed document exchange, and a desire for more time to engage in settlement discussions.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the parties' reasons did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction and jurisprudence.

The applicant, a former condominium board member, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal for filing the human rights application.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment by the condominium board to any Code-protected ground.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed, as the board's disclosure of the application to the membership was not a reprisal, and the applicant's failure to be re-elected was the result of a membership vote, not an action by the respondents.

The application was dismissed.

Following a consent order requiring condominium unit owners to comply with quarterly fire safety inspection obligations under the Condominium Act, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The condominium corporation sought full indemnity costs pursuant to s. 134 of the Act, arguing the respondents’ non-compliance necessitated the application.

The respondents opposed on the basis of financial hardship.

The court held that the financial burden of obtaining compliance should not fall on innocent unit owners and that the respondents’ failure created fire safety risks requiring court intervention.

Full indemnity costs of $12,000 were awarded and ordered to be added to the respondents’ common expenses under s. 134(5) of the Act.

The applicant sought declaratory relief that a writ of execution registered against him personally did not attach to lands he held in trust for a corporation.

The respondent creditor argued the trust arrangement raised triable issues and alleged the transaction was potentially a fraudulent conveyance.

The court held that the unregistered declaration of trust, created years before the writ of execution, established that the lands were held solely in trust and not beneficially by the debtor.

As an execution creditor can claim no greater interest than the debtor held, the writ could not attach to trust property or its sale proceeds.

Judgment was granted declaring the writ did not affect the lands and ordering release of funds held in trust.