Carol Dirks

The moving parties sought an adjournment of four related applications and two summary judgment motions due to the late filing of a responding record containing an expert report.

The responding party did not oppose the adjournment but argued the expert report should not have been a surprise.

The court granted the adjournment, extended the deadline to set three of the related cases down for trial, and reserved the costs of the appearance to the hearing on the merits.

Costs decision following a successful condominium compliance application.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs after obtaining a ruling that another unit owner's use of a condominium unit as an accounting office contravened the declaration and that part of the declaration conflicted with the Condominium Act, 1998.

Respondents argued that the dispute involved novel issues, internal board conflicts, and that mediation had been offered but refused.

The court applied the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Partial indemnity costs of $4,900 were awarded against two respondents jointly and severally.

Unit owners sought an order compelling mediation and arbitration under s.132 of the Condominium Act, 1998 regarding directions issued by the condominium corporation concerning interactions with neighbours, security staff, and board members, and use of common facilities.

The corporation argued the dispute should proceed in court rather than through the Act’s mandatory mediation/arbitration process.

The court held that the impugned directions were minor administrative measures relating to day‑to‑day condominium management and did not give rise to a genuine dispute requiring mediation, arbitration, or litigation.

Applying the de minimis principle, the court concluded the issues were too insignificant to justify legal proceedings.

The application was dismissed with reduced costs payable to the condominium corporation.

The applicant condominium unit owner sought declarations and compliance orders regarding restrictive use covenants in a commercial condominium declaration.

The applicant operated an accounting office and relied on a declaration provision restricting multiple units from operating the same type of business.

Another unit owner provided tax preparation and financial planning services from its unit.

The court held that these services constituted operation of an “Accounting Office” within the meaning of the declaration, thereby contravening the restrictive covenant.

The court further held that a declaration clause purporting to relieve the condominium corporation from enforcing restrictive covenants conflicted with s. 17(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998, which obligates the corporation to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance.

The clause was declared unenforceable and deemed amended, and compliance orders were granted.