George F. Vella

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owners to enter into a section 98 agreement regarding a deck installed on the common elements, remove a satellite dish, and pay for water damage caused by a leak.

The court granted the order regarding the deck, finding it was an addition or improvement requiring an agreement under the Condominium Act.

However, the court dismissed the requests regarding the satellite dish and the water leak, finding the respondents had prior approval for the dish and the applicant failed to prove the respondents' unit caused the leak.

The Administrator of a condominium corporation applied for directions regarding the voting procedure for the election of a new board of directors, following a referendum where owners voted to return to a board-managed structure.

The court provided directions on the election process, including that the owner-occupier position under s. 51(6) of the Condominium Act would be for a three-year term, that unsuccessful candidates for that position could run for the remaining positions, and that a retired judge would supervise the meeting.

The applicant law firm, Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP, applied for a declaration regarding $61,351.64 held in trust from a settlement, which was claimed by both the respondent former client, Ani-Wall, and the respondent former law firm, Cassels Brock.

The funds represented an unpaid legal account.

The court found that while the applicant lawyer breached a personal undertaking and could not unilaterally bind the client to an equitable assignment, the former law firm was entitled to a charging lien over the funds.

The court held that the charging lien was not subject to a limitation period, unlike the underlying contract claim.

The court ordered the funds to be subject to the charging lien but allowed the former client to seek an assessment of the accounts due to special circumstances.

The plaintiff subcontractor registered a claim for lien for concrete foundation work.

The defendants argued the lien was registered out of time.

The plaintiff claimed it attended the site on February 19, 2009, to cut ties and chip concrete, which would bring the April 6, 2009 registration within the 45-day limit.

The court found the February work was to rectify minor deficiencies and amounted to an attempt to bootstrap the claim for lien.

The court held the lien expired because the time for preservation began running when the substantive work was completed in November 2008.