Carol A. Dirks

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding her use of a condominium gym.

She requested an interim remedy of increased security patrols during her workouts, alleging bullying and harassment by other residents and staff.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that the complicated fact situation was best decided after hearing all the evidence at the upcoming hearing on the merits, and noting there were no allegations of interference with the applicant's residential premises.

The respondent requested an order compelling the applicant to provide available dates for a teleconference or medical evidence supporting her representative's unavailability.

The Tribunal declined to make the requested orders but directed the applicant to provide specific information regarding any disability-related accommodation needs and to provide available dates for both a teleconference and the hearing within five days.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and reprisal regarding the respondent corporation's calculation of her condominium fees and the placement of a lien on her unit.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the respondents' actions to the applicant's race or to any intention of reprisal.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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.

The appellant declarant registered a condominium declaration requiring the respondent condominium corporation to purchase a manager's unit.

After a turnover meeting, the newly elected board of directors purported to terminate the purchase agreement pursuant to s. 112 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The application judge dismissed the appellant's application to enforce the purchase.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the power to terminate agreements under s. 112 does not extend to obligations arising from a condominium declaration, which has a distinct and higher legal status under the Act.

The applicant, who has a physical disability, filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination because the respondent condominium corporation refused to pay for the installation of hand railings on the front and back steps of her unit.

The steps were designated as exclusive use common elements.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent approved the installation of the railings, it was not responsible for the cost of alterations to exclusive use common elements under the Condominium Act and the corporation's Declaration.

The application was dismissed as the respondent did not contravene the Human Rights Code.