Carol Dirks

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 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.

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, 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 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 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, 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.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The case proceeded to Stage 2 mediation, and the applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3.

The applicant failed to advance the case within the required 15-day period.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the case closed and dismissed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium owner requested two Periodic Information Certificates from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided the certificates after the 30-day deadline.

The applicant challenged the adequacy and content of the certificates and sought a penalty for the delay.

The Tribunal found that disputes over the content of the certificates fall outside its jurisdiction under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal also declined to order a penalty, finding that the respondent had a reasonable excuse for the delay due to concurrently processing a large volume of records for the applicant in another mediation.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's case regarding the adequacy of records, arguing the application was filed late and the request was therefore abandoned under section 13.10 of Ontario Regulation 48/01.

The tribunal found that the applicant filed the case within the required six-month period from delivering the request for records.

The motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The applicants, three Muslim condominium unit owners, alleged that the respondent condominium corporation and property management company discriminated against them on the basis of creed by holding a special owners' meeting on the evening of Eid-ul-Azha.

The Tribunal found that the respondents did not intentionally schedule the meeting on the religious holiday and did not treat the applicants in a distinct and disadvantageous manner.

Furthermore, even if the scheduling had an adverse effect on the applicants' ability to observe their faith, the respondents reasonably accommodated their creed-based needs by allowing them to participate and vote by proxy.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, a commercial condominium owner, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, claiming the condominium board gave preferential treatment to Chinese business owners regarding the placement of an ATM and the leasing of a unit to a competitor.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that, accepting the applicant's allegations as true, the application had a reasonable prospect of success and allowed it to proceed.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend his application to include a recent allegation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment regarding the occupancy of accommodation, specifically concerning the respondent condominium corporations' handling of his common expense arrears and the registration of a lien.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request to remove the respondents' counsel for an alleged conflict of interest.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request to dismiss the application outright but granted their request to schedule a summary hearing to determine whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success.