Graeme Macpherson

On a Rule 2.1.01 screening request, the court dismissed the action against one defendant because the statement of claim was facially incoherent and disclosed no viable cause of action against that defendant.

The pleading consisted only of a one-page description of undated events relating to an apparent rental and eviction, without full party names or coherent allegations of wrongdoing.

The court held that there were no particulars of any breach or duty owed by the condominium corporation and that, in the absence of any coherent basis on which the claim could succeed, the proceeding was an abuse of process.

No costs were ordered.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his oppression action by way of summary judgment.

The action arose from a condominium fire, subsequent lien for remediation costs, and eventual power of sale of his unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the motion judge's decisions regarding amendments to the claim, expert evidence, the suitability of summary judgment, or apprehension of bias.

Two neighbouring condominium corporations, Ottawa-Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 574 (574) and Ottawa-Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 573 (573), brought cross-applications to determine their legal and financial obligations regarding a shared timber retaining wall requiring replacement. 574 sought a declaration that 573 was responsible for 40% of costs, proportional to the wall's presence on their property. 573 claimed the wall encroached on its property and sought its relocation or a significantly reduced cost contribution (8.11%).

The court dismissed 573's encroachment claim, finding the Site Plan Agreement did not create enforceable obligations between successors in title and that 573 was bound by the original developer's decisions.

The court determined that the wall was a common element benefiting both properties and that 573 was statutorily obligated to contribute to its maintenance.

The court ordered a 60/40 cost split, with 574 paying 60% and 573 paying 40%, based on the proportion of the wall on each property, rejecting 573's arguments for a lower contribution based on hypothetical original plans or perceived benefit.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to 574 due to 573's unreasonable refusal of settlement offers and the resulting disproportionately high legal costs.

The plaintiffs brought an action seeking declarations that the defendant, Ashcroft Homes – Eastboro Inc., was not entitled to terminate their agreements of purchase and sale for residential homes.

The plaintiffs argued that the early termination condition (Condition 2 of Schedule U) was contrary to the Tarion Addendum, was invoked untimely, or that Ashcroft breached its obligation to take commercially reasonable steps to satisfy the condition.

The court found that Condition 2 was consistent with the Tarion Addendum, Ashcroft terminated the agreements in a timely manner, and Ashcroft did take all commercially reasonable steps to satisfy the condition.

The action was dismissed.

This appeal concerns a dispute between two condominium corporations regarding the cost of replacing shared electrical infrastructure (electric switchgear or ESG).

The appellant, Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 656 (656), refused to contribute to the replacement cost, arguing that the ESG was the property of the respondent, Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 519 (519), and its maintenance was 519's sole responsibility under their respective Declarations and the Condominium Act, 1998. 519 had successfully brought an application based on unjust enrichment, arguing that 656 would be enriched by continuing to receive electricity without contributing, 519 would be deprived, and there was no juristic reason for the enrichment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that all elements of unjust enrichment were met, specifically agreeing that neither the Condominium Act nor 519's Declaration imposed a statutory obligation on 519 to maintain the ESG for 656's benefit without compensation, and that the absence of a cost-sharing agreement did not constitute a juristic reason to justify the enrichment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), brought a motion for an interim injunction to prohibit the responding party, the Carleton University Students' Association (CUSA), from proceeding with a referendum regarding disassociation from CFS.

CFS argued the referendum violated its bylaws, which dictate a specific process and timeline for such votes.

CUSA contended the referendum was merely consultative and non-binding.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a genuine issue to be adjudicated and that proceeding with the referendum would cause irreparable harm by subverting the regular process to which all members are bound.

The court granted the mandatory order prohibiting the referendum.

The applicant condominium corporation sought declarations, injunctions, and compliance orders requiring the respondent unit owners to wear masks in the common elements, alleging their refusal constituted a dangerous activity under s. 117 of the Condominium Act.

The respondents claimed medical exemptions under provincial regulations and municipal by-laws, which did not require proof of exemption.

The court balanced the competing rights, finding that while the respondents could transit through common elements for ingress and egress without a mask due to their claimed exemptions, wandering or exercising on other floors without a mask constituted a dangerous activity.

The court issued a compliance order and permanent injunction restricting the respondents' unmasked movement to direct ingress and egress.

The individual defendants brought a motion to strike claims against them, arguing that the plaintiff's amendment to its statement of claim improperly withdrew an admission regarding the timing of alleged conduct, and that the claim failed to plead the required particulars for negligent misrepresentation.

The court held that the dates provided in the plaintiff's response to a demand for particulars were factual pleadings, not deliberate admissions, and could be amended without leave.

However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to plead the essential elements of negligent misrepresentation against the individual defendants.

The negligent misrepresentation claim was struck.