Bree Pierce

Following the dismissal of the applicant's case regarding garage door noise, the respondent condominium corporations sought partial indemnity costs of $1,767.32.

The respondents argued the applicant's conduct was unreasonable and for an improper purpose, noting this was her second application on a similar issue.

The Tribunal found the applicant's reliance on recent case law was not unreasonable and declined to award costs, dismissing the request.

The applicant condominium owner filed a case alleging that noise and vibration from the operation of the respondents' garage doors constituted an unreasonable nuisance under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent condominium corporations brought a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of res judicata and lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal rejected the res judicata argument, finding the current complaint related to a newly installed garage door mechanism rather than a broken grate addressed in a previous case.

However, the Tribunal granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that noise resulting from the regular and ordinary use of common elements does not constitute an 'activity' within the meaning of section 117(2) of the Act, and the relevant declaration provision applied to owners rather than the corporation.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that the respondent condominium corporations breached a settlement agreement regarding the remediation of noise and odour from an exhaust stack, as well as a confidentiality provision.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the remediation terms because the noise and odour stemmed from a condition of the property rather than an activity carried out by a person, which falls outside section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal also found no breach of the confidentiality term regarding the delivery of update letters.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The appellant, a private career college operating a truck driving school, appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse to renew its registration and a Notice of Immediate Suspension issued by the Superintendent of Private Career Colleges.

The Superintendent alleged various safety and administrative contraventions, including improper instructor-to-student ratios, inadequate backing instruction space, and deficient record-keeping.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant had committed several administrative contraventions, the Superintendent failed to prove the more serious safety allegations, such as crediting out-of-ratio instruction hours or intentionally obstructing the investigation.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant demonstrated a willingness to comply and had proposed reasonable solutions in its Action Plan.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to lift the suspension and renew the registration, subject to strict conditions including the appointment of a compliance monitor for six months.

The defendants brought a motion to strike various paragraphs from the plaintiff's statement of claim, alleging they were prejudicial, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's action arose from his acrimonious departure from an accounting partnership, seeking an accounting, declarations of bad faith and oppressive conduct, and damages.

The motion sought to strike paragraphs related to a request for trial together with a civil assault action, allegations of reprisal and false sexual assault claims, a complaint filed with CPA Ontario, and the nature of departure negotiations.

The court dismissed the motion to strike paragraphs concerning the request for trial together and the reprisal/assault allegations, finding they could support a claim for breach of the duty of good faith.

However, the court granted the motion in part regarding the CPA Ontario complaint, striking those references due to inadmissibility under the CPA Ontario Act and public policy protecting regulatory complaints.

The motion to strike paragraphs on departure negotiations was also dismissed, as the defendants failed to prove settlement privilege and the allegations could support a breach of contract claim.

Due to mixed success, each party was ordered to bear their own costs.