The respondents originally brought an application for an oppression remedy under the Condominium Act, which was converted into an action by a consent order.
Years later, without delivering a statement of claim, the respondents returned the matter to a motion judge, seeking substantive monetary relief and alleging contempt.
The motion judge granted the monetary relief.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge lacked jurisdiction to grant substantive relief on a motion since the application had been converted to an action, and the relief could not be justified as a remedy for contempt.
