5 total
Following a consent resolution of a condominium dispute, the court ordered each side to bear its own costs.
The applicant condominium corporation commenced an application and obtained an ex parte injunction excluding a resident due to concerning behaviour stemming from mental health issues.
The respondents successfully appealed the ex parte order, and the parties subsequently resolved the substantive issues by consent.
On the remaining issue of costs, the applicant sought full indemnity costs to be added to the respondents' common expenses, while the respondents sought their costs based on their success in setting aside the ex parte order and negotiating a resolution.
The court found merit in both positions and ordered each side to bear its own costs.
Tribunal accepted the applicant's withdrawal of the case without prejudice and closed the matter.
The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.
During the mediation stage, the applicant requested to withdraw the case, to which the respondent agreed.
The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal without prejudice, ordered the parties to bear their own costs, and closed the case.
Motion to reopen case dismissed due to unexplained significant delay in filing the request.
The respondent brought a motion to reopen a case under Rule 47 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice after failing to participate in the original hearing.
The respondent claimed she was injured and unable to participate, and that the dog in question had been removed from the unit.
The Tribunal dismissed the motion, noting that the respondent failed to explain why she waited until July 2025 to request a reopening of a case decided in October 2024.
The Tribunal concluded it would be unfair to reopen the case after such a significant delay.
Application for accident benefits dismissed; injuries fell within MIG and non-earner benefit test not met.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he was barred from proceeding due to non-attendance at an insurer's examination.
The Tribunal found the applicant was not barred from proceeding, as the respondent failed to provide a requested interpreter for the examination.
However, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, as he failed to establish chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant returned to work shortly after the accident and did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.
The application was dismissed.
The court dismissed the applications as an abuse of process and collateral attacks.
The applicant, Roy D'Mello, brought two applications characterized by the court as an unrelenting campaign of stonewalling and delay, weaponizing the Rules of Civil Procedure, and constituting collateral attacks on prior judicial decisions.
The respondent, Chris Jamie Sapusak, brought motions to dismiss these applications.
The court incorporated its earlier reasons for dismissing similar applications against other respondents.
The court found D'Mello's applications disclosed no reasonable cause of action, could not succeed, were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and were not authorized under Rule 14.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The motions to dismiss D'Mello's applications were granted without leave to amend.
