3 total
Condominium corporation and neighbours acted oppressively by failing to adhere to and enforce development approval processes.
The appellant, a unit owner in a vacant land condominium, appealed an application judge's decision regarding her claims against neighbouring unit owners and the condominium corporation.
The neighbours had breached the condominium declaration by altering grading and removing vegetation without approval, and the corporation had failed to promptly enforce a halt work order.
The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred by failing to adjudicate the appellant's oppression claims under s. 135 of the Condominium Act.
The Court held that the conduct of both the neighbours and the corporation was oppressive and unfairly disregarded the appellant's interests.
The Court granted declarations of oppression and ordered the corporation to have proper regard for the appellant's interests in future approvals, but declined to order the neighbours to remediate the grading.
The Court also found the application judge erred by determining costs without allowing the parties to make submissions, and directed the parties to provide written costs submissions to the Court of Appeal.
A jointly retained corporate lawyer cannot assert privilege against minority shareholders regarding corporate contracts.
The decision addresses a motion to compel a lawyer, Mr. Strickland, to answer questions refused during cross-examination in a shareholder dispute among several First Nations and a jointly owned corporation.
The court analyzes the scope of permissible cross-examination on a motion to dismiss, the application of solicitor-client and litigation privilege in the context of joint retainers, and the rights of minority shareholders to information.
The court orders that certain questions regarding the existence of contractual commitments must be answered, as they are not protected by privilege, but limits further questioning.
A judgment creditor was granted limited standing under the PPSA to participate in a secured creditor's application regarding settlement funds.
The decision addresses a motion by Pamela Adderley for standing in an application brought by Bridgepoint Financial Services Limited Partnership I against Rudolf Steinberg.
The application concerns entitlement to settlement funds arising from accident benefits and the priority of claims to those funds.
The court considers whether Adderley should be joined as a party under Rule 5.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure or permitted to participate under section 67 of the Personal Property Security Act.
The court concludes that while Adderley is not a necessary party for joinder, her interests are engaged under the PPSA and she is permitted to participate in the application, subject to limits on her evidence and submissions.
