Christy Allen

The respondents brought a motion under Rule 1.08(8) seeking an order that cross-examinations on affidavits proceed in person rather than virtually, citing a history of surreptitious recording by the self-represented applicant.

The court found that the respondents failed to establish sufficient justification to depart from the originally agreed-upon virtual format.

Applying the factors in Rule 1.08(6) and principles from the case law, the court ordered that cross-examinations proceed virtually, with additional protective orders prohibiting any recording or publication of the transcripts by the parties.

The timetable was amended accordingly, while the hearing date remained unchanged.

The respondent was entirely successful in defending an injunction motion and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued that costs should be deferred to the judge hearing the balance of the application.

The court declined to defer costs, noting the uncertainty of the application proceeding.

While the court found the applicants' conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs, it noted their improper conduct in splitting their case and unnecessarily complicating the motion.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $60,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicants, who were the developer and manager of the respondent condominium corporation, sought an interlocutory or permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from evicting them from a Visitor Centre they leased.

The respondent had terminated the management agreements and the lease following a breakdown in the relationship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the termination of the agreements, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience strongly favoured the respondent, which needed the Visitor Centre to manage the property.

Following a finding that the respondent condominium corporation unfairly disregarded the applicant's interests by requiring a full-time security guard for a pay-and-display parking lot, the court determined the appropriate remedy.

The court held it had authority under s. 135(3) of the Condominium Act to permit the applicant to make the proposed changes to the common elements without requiring a vote by the unit owners under s. 97(4).

The court found a vote would place owners in a conflict of interest given the applicant's outstanding damages claim.

The court also ordered the respondent to turn on and maintain existing lighting in the parking garage.

A condominium corporation brought an application under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998 seeking a compliance order against a unit owner who failed to maintain his unit and refused to prepare it for pest control treatment despite a bed bug infestation and excessive clutter creating health and safety concerns.

The court found the owner breached multiple statutory obligations under the Act and the condominium declaration, including duties to maintain the unit and to avoid dangerous conditions likely to cause damage or injury.

The court ordered the owner to prepare the unit for pest control treatment and authorized the corporation to enter the unit and carry out preparation and treatment if the owner failed to comply within 30 days.

Costs and remediation expenses were ordered recoverable as common expenses payable by the owner.