Carol A. Dirks

Unit owners operating food court businesses in a commercial condominium brought an application under the Condominium Act seeking declarations, damages, and oppression remedies regarding the allocation of common expenses and enforcement of exclusive-use provisions.

The court interpreted the condominium declarations and held that waste disposal for common elements, including a food court seating area subject to exclusive use, remained a common expense payable by all unit owners.

The applicants had therefore been overcharged since 2012 and were awarded damages representing their share of improperly allocated waste disposal costs.

The court also ordered the corporation to enforce a designated-use provision protecting one applicant’s exclusive right to sell dim sum but rejected allegations of oppressive conduct by the condominium corporation.

Costs were left for further submissions.

Two conflicting applications were brought in the name of a condominium corporation regarding a board of directors election.

The former board sought to set aside the election results based on alleged proxy tampering, while the newly elected board sought to uphold the results.

The court found that the meeting chair lacked the authority to decertify the election weeks after issuing his final report.

Furthermore, the applicants challenging the election failed to prove that improper proxy tampering occurred or materially affected the outcome.

The court upheld the election results and ordered strict identification and deposit requirements for proxies in future elections.

A condominium unit owner brought an application seeking enforcement of condominium by-laws and damages after persistent excessive noise from an upstairs unit used as a dance studio interfered with quiet enjoyment.

Despite numerous complaints and security confirmations of excessive noise, the condominium corporation failed to enforce its own rules requiring noise abatement.

The court held that the corporation breached its statutory duty under s. 17(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998 to ensure compliance with its by-laws and that its conduct amounted to oppression under s. 135 by unfairly disregarding the applicant’s interests.

The court ordered the corporation to take reasonable steps to enforce its rules against the offending unit and restore quiet enjoyment.

The applicant was awarded special damages for relocation expenses caused by the ongoing disturbance.

The defendant developer and related parties brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a condominium corporation’s claims arising from a 2005 transaction in which the corporation purchased surface rights to parking units and granted mortgages to the developer.

The corporation alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, and breach of statutory duty, claiming the purchase price was inflated and the mortgages invalid.

The court held that the claims were statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the relevant facts were known or reasonably discoverable at the time of the 2005 transaction.

The court further found no admissible evidence that the purchase price was excessive or that the defendants caused compensable harm.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action, and related motions for an injunction and to amend the claim were also dismissed.