B. Rutherford

The applicant unit owner sought an assessment of legal fees paid by the respondent condominium corporation and charged to her unit as common expenses following compliance proceedings.

She also sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the enforcement of a lien on her unit and a transfer of the assessment to Toronto.

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to an assessment as of right and had to establish special circumstances.

The court found special circumstances only for the fees related to a motion for leave to appeal, ordering an assessment for those fees alone.

The motions for an injunction and venue transfer were dismissed.

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.

A condominium corporation brought an application under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998 seeking compliance orders, a permanent injunction, removal of a director, and a forced sale of a unit due to repeated assaults, threats, and harassment by a unit owner.

The court found that the respondent’s conduct constituted multiple physical assaults, threats, and intimidation that violated s. 117 of the Act and the condominium’s declaration and rules by disturbing the quiet enjoyment and safety of other residents.

The court rejected procedural objections concerning notice under s. 23 of the Act and authorization of counsel, holding the proceeding was properly constituted as a compliance application.

However, the court declined to remove the respondent from the board or order a forced sale, finding those remedies inappropriate at this stage.

A restraining order was issued requiring the respondent to keep the peace, cease abusive conduct, and stay a specified distance from certain individuals.

Multiple condominium corporations brought motions under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to lift the automatic stay of proceedings following the bankruptcy of a property manager and his company.

The underlying actions alleged fraudulent mortgage loans and fraudulent overcharging in condominium management contracts.

The court held that the claims involved issues of fraud, complex contingent debts, and disputes requiring full adjudication with multiple parties, making the bankruptcy claims process inadequate.

The court lifted the statutory stays to allow four existing civil actions to continue and permitted a lender to commence two related actions, ordering that all six proceedings be case-managed together on the Commercial List.

The court also imposed terms limiting costs recovery against the bankrupt estates prior to discharge.