Carol A. Dirks

The condominium corporation applied for injunctive relief to prohibit a unit owner from continuing disruptive and objectionable conduct, including profane verbal abuse and banging on walls.

The unit owner brought a cross-application alleging oppression and seeking to refer the matter to mediation/arbitration.

The court preferred the corporation's evidence, finding the unit owner's complaints about cannabis smells and stalking to be unsubstantiated.

The court granted the corporation's application, maintaining the interim injunction, and dismissed the unit owner's cross-application for oppression.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the corporation.

In an appeal arising from a summary judgment motion in a commercial dispute, the panel held that an order refusing summary judgment on an incomplete record with unresolved credibility issues is interlocutory, not final.

Reconstituting itself as the Divisional Court under the Courts of Justice Act, the panel held that the motion judge erred by failing to invite submissions on the next procedural steps after concluding that summary disposition was unavailable.

Applying the summary judgment principles in Hryniak, the panel affirmed the refusal of summary judgment but remitted the matter to the motion judge or another judge for further case management and trial directions.

The request to require a trial on the existing record only, without new evidence, was rejected.

The applicant developer sought oppression relief under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998 to compel a condominium corporation to sign a resort access licence agreement for shared amenities in a resort-style development.

The court held that the applicant was a successor declarant with standing and that the condominium corporation remained obliged under its declaration to enter into a licence agreement, notwithstanding its attempted declaration amendment and arguments based on s. 112.

However, the court found that the refusal to sign the specific agreement tendered was not oppressive because the proposed terms left fees, rules, closures, and future charges substantially within the developer's unilateral control.

The proper course, if terms cannot be agreed, is mediation and arbitration under s. 132.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant unit owner filed a tribunal application alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records, including meeting minutes and a reserve fund study, within the statutory timelines.

The corporation eventually provided the minutes, blaming the delay on a management transition, which the tribunal found was not a reasonable excuse.

The tribunal determined the requested reserve fund study only existed in draft form and was not a record the applicant was entitled to receive.

As the applicant had received all existing records and waived his request for a penalty, the tribunal made no order for further production but awarded the applicant $200 in costs for tribunal fees.

The defendant condominium corporation brought a motion under section 47 of the Construction Act to discharge the plaintiff's construction lien, arguing the principal amount of $811,919.08 had been paid in full.

The plaintiff opposed, asserting it was entitled to allocate the payments first to accrued interest, leaving a principal balance of $93,004.03.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the parties had reached a binding agreement on payment allocation and whether the defendant had provided a clear and irrevocable direction to apply payments to the principal debt.

The appellant was partially successful on appeal, having a set-off amount of $325,824.41 quashed, though failing to overturn the dismissal of their claim.

The parties could not agree on costs following the appeal's mixed outcome.

The court found that while success was divided, the appellant's success on the set-off ground was of greater monetary value, justifying a costs award.

The court awarded the appellant $6,000 all-inclusive, noting the amount sought was disproportionate to the final outcome.

The appellant factoring company appealed a trial decision that dismissed its construction lien claim and found it jointly liable for damages caused by the contractor who abandoned the project.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings regarding the lack of authority to approve invoices.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred in using equitable and statutory set-off as a sword to award damages against the assignee factoring company that exceeded the value of its lien.

The damages award against the appellant was quashed.

The applicant, a unit owner, requested a copy of the new condominium management contract and bid quotations from the respondent condominium corporation.

The corporation delayed providing the records until the mediation stage of the Tribunal process, citing the need to protect the integrity of the procurement process.

The Tribunal found that the delay amounted to a refusal without a reasonable excuse, as the procurement process was already complete when the request was made.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to pay a $125 penalty and $200 in costs for the applicant's filing fees.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed Tarion's denial of its emergency warranty claims for water leaks in the common elements.

The central issue was whether the plumbing contractor hired by the condominium to perform emergency repairs was authorized by the builder.

The Tribunal found that the contractor was not on the builder's trades list and was hired directly by the condominium for maintenance work.

Because the condominium failed to follow Tarion's emergency warranty claim process, which requires notifying the builder and allowing them 24 hours to resolve the emergency, the condominium disentitled itself to warranty coverage.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.

This is a construction lien action and counterclaim arising from a fixed-price drywall contract.

The plaintiffs, Nikom Construction Inc. (contractor) and Invoice Payment System Corporation (factoring company), sued for unpaid invoices.

The defendant, The Block Inc. (owner), counterclaimed for damages due to alleged contract breaches, deficiencies, and abandonment by Nikom.

The court found that Nikom repudiated the contract by failing to provide adequate manpower and supervision, and by having significant deficiencies, rather than The Block repudiating by late payments.

The court also ruled that the "indoor management rule" did not bind The Block to unauthorized invoice approvals.

Consequently, the plaintiffs' action was dismissed, their liens discharged, and The Block's counterclaim for costs to complete and correct Nikom's work was granted in part, with the plaintiffs ordered to pay $325,824.41 plus pre-judgment interest.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for various corporate records, including board minutes, financial documents, and security video footage.

The applicant sought these records primarily to support her ongoing defamation and harassment claims in Small Claims Court against the condominium corporation and a past board member.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the request was made for an improper purpose, as it was not solely related to her interests as an owner as required by the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal also noted that the respondent had already provided many of the requested records and properly redacted others under statutory exemptions for ongoing litigation.

Costs of $300 plus HST were awarded to the respondent due to the applicant's voluminous submissions and improper use of the Tribunal process.

The self-represented appellant failed to appear at the hearing of the appeal.

After waiting for half an hour, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, without costs.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding nuisance concerns.

The case proceeded to mediation, where the parties worked together to address the issues.

The applicant was subsequently given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fee within 15 days.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the case under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The appellant condominium corporation requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision which found that storage lockers in its parking garage violated the Ontario Fire Code.

The appellant argued the Commission breached procedural fairness by not making individual locker owners parties to the appeal, and erred in its statutory interpretation of the Fire Code and Building Code.

The Commission dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that individual owners must initiate an appeal or seek party status to be included, and that no errors of law or fact were made in the original decision regarding fire separation requirements.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, requested specific accounting records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided some records but argued it had a reasonable excuse for not providing the remaining detailed records earlier, as the requests evolved during the process.

The Tribunal found the respondent had a reasonable excuse and did not order a penalty.

The Tribunal allowed a $90 production fee for the remaining records but denied a fee for records already produced.

The respondent's request for $2,000 in costs was dismissed, and the applicants were awarded $200 for Tribunal filing fees.

The Applicants, purchasers of a condominium unit, sought a declaration that they validly terminated their Agreement of Purchase and Sale and were entitled to the return of their $54,449.90 deposit.

They argued termination based on a clause in the Occupancy License, the vendor's failure to invoke a statutory provision, or entitlement to relief from forfeiture.

The court found that the termination clause required mutual consent, which was not obtained.

It also determined that the vendor was not obligated to invoke the statutory provision and, in any event, could not have done so.

While acknowledging the deposit was disproportionate to the vendor's damages given the property's resale at a significant profit, the court denied relief from forfeiture, finding no unconscionability due to the parties' sophistication, legal advice, and the purchasers' clear intent not to close the transaction.

The Applicants' request was dismissed.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, brought a motion to clarify and expand the scope of records requested from the respondent condominium corporation, and to penalize the respondent for an alleged incident of intimidation.

The Tribunal restricted the scope of the records to specific accounting documents related to three projects, finding that expanding the scope beyond what was agreed upon during mediation would be unfair.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to include the alleged intimidation incident, as it was outside the scope of the records hearing.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Fire Marshal review decision confirming an inspection order that required the removal of household items from wire-caged storage lockers located in an underground parking garage.

The appellant argued that the individual locker owners should have been made parties, that the storage complied with the Ontario Fire Code, and that an exemption applied because the lockers complied with the Ontario Building Code.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness in not adding the individual owners.

The Commission held that the Fire Code requires parking garages to be fire-separated from the rest of the building, meaning household items cannot be stored in unseparated lockers.

The Commission also found insufficient evidence that the lockers complied with the Building Code, as approved drawings only permitted bicycle storage.

The review decision was amended to expressly permit bicycle storage and to extend the compliance date.

The applicant condominium owner claimed the respondent condominium corporation failed to keep adequate records, specifically alleging that the minutes of a board meeting were inadequate because there was no quorum of qualified directors.

The respondent acknowledged the original minutes were inaccurate but had already amended them to reflect the lack of quorum.

The Tribunal found the amended minutes were adequate and declined to order any penalty or disqualify the directors, noting such remedies were outside its authority or unwarranted.

No costs were awarded to either party.