Fatima M. Vieira

The Dowdell Parties and York Condominium Corporation No. 403 ("YCC 403") each brought applications under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Dowdell Parties sought declarations of breach and oppression, an order for YCC 403 to maintain exterior windows using external equipment, and damages, arguing against YCC 403's access through their unit for maintenance.

YCC 403 sought declarations that the Dowdell Parties breached s. 19 of the Act by refusing access for anchor inspection/testing and window cleaning, and an order compelling access and provision of keys.

The court dismissed the Dowdell Parties' application, finding YCC 403's maintenance approach reasonable and no material harm or oppression.

The court granted YCC 403's application, declaring the Dowdell Parties in breach of s. 19 for refusing access and ordering them to permit entry and provide keys, emphasizing the condominium corporation's broad powers and the reasonableness of its access requirements for common element maintenance.

The applicant unit owner brought an application against the condominium corporation for breach of its duty to maintain and repair common elements and for oppressive conduct, stemming from a long-standing mould problem in her unit.

The condominium corporation brought a competing application, alleging the unit owner breached her duty to maintain her unit due to lifestyle choices.

The court admitted fresh evidence regarding water leakage and insulation issues.

The court found that the mould was primarily caused by building design issues related to common elements, not the unit owner's lifestyle.

While the condominium corporation eventually remediated the mould, its overall response was deemed unreasonably delayed and not timely enough, thus breaching its duty to repair and maintain common elements under the Condominium Act.

However, the court dismissed the oppression claim, finding that the corporation's conduct, though delayed, did not amount to oppression, unfair prejudice, or unfair disregard of the unit owner's interests.

The unit owner's application was allowed to the extent that the condominium corporation was ordered to pay for the remediation costs, subject to the unit owner's proportionate share of common expenses.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of a motion for security for costs brought by Peel Condominium Corporation No. 507 (PCC 507) and supported by Larlyn Property Management Ltd. Precision Tree Care Ltd. (Precision), the successful party on the original motion, sought costs.

The court applied Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering factors such as the result, complexity, and the parties' conduct.

The court fixed costs at $10,000.00, payable by PCC 507 to Precision, noting that Precision was successful and the matter was moderately complex.

Larlyn was not awarded costs and was not ordered to pay costs, as it took no position on the original motion.

The court also admonished counsel for not adhering to page limits for submissions and for attempting to re-argue the underlying motion.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a permanent injunction and a contempt order against the respondents for persistent harassment, abuse, and threatening conduct towards its personnel and other unit owners, in breach of three prior interim court orders.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for a third adjournment based on unsubstantiated medical claims and proceeded without responding evidence due to the respondent's failure to pay outstanding costs.

The court granted the permanent injunction, found the individual respondent in contempt, and ordered the respondents to sell their unit and vacate all premises within the commercial condominium, citing the severe and persistent nature of the misconduct.

This endorsement assesses costs following the plaintiff's acceptance of the defendants' offer to settle a motor vehicle accident claim for $34,000 plus partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff sought over $180,000 in fees and disbursements.

The court applied Rule 58.06, emphasizing fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.

It found the plaintiff's initial damage claims excessive, particularly for income loss and housekeeping expenses, which lacked strong evidentiary support.

The court significantly reduced the claimed costs, excluding certain expert reports and medical illustrations, and applying a proportionality reduction to the remaining fees and disbursements.

A homebuilder appealed the dismissal of its action against its Commercial General Liability insurer for a declaration of duty to defend and indemnify in relation to a claim by homeowners.

The homeowners had purchased a lot and home where the property grading exceeded municipal standards.

The builder failed to include a required warning in the purchase agreement.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding no coverage under the CGL policy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the claims were either based on intentional conduct or were clearly excluded under the policy's exclusion clauses, particularly those relating to property damage arising from defects in the builder's work and failure to provide warnings.

A construction crane collapsed onto a partially completed retirement residence, causing significant property damage covered by the owner’s “all risks” construction insurance policy.

The owner’s insurer commenced a subrogated action and co‑defendants sought contribution and indemnity from the contractor and crane supplier.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing the crossclaims, arguing that the construction contract contained an insurance covenant allocating the risk of property loss to the owner’s project insurance and benefiting contractors and subcontractors.

The court held that the covenant barred claims against those parties and prevented contribution claims under the Negligence Act.

The court further held that the insurer’s waiver of subrogation and the doctrine recognizing insurable interests of trades on construction projects also barred the claims.

All crossclaims against the moving parties were dismissed.