Greg Marley

The applicant, a unit owner and former board member, brought an application against the condominium corporation alleging oppression and seeking the removal of the board and the appointment of an inspector.

The applicant claimed the board acted unilaterally and without authority in entering into contracts for building recladding and a loan agreement, and failed to properly document meetings.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the board met its standard of care, the recladding was a necessary repair under the Condominium Act, and the applicant, having been on the board during the relevant times, was fully aware of and participated in the decisions.

The court found no oppressive conduct or financial impropriety.

At a contested status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants sought dismissal of a long‑standing civil action for delay.

The plaintiffs were required to show cause why the action should not be dismissed by demonstrating an acceptable explanation for the delay and the absence of non‑compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The court found substantial unexplained litigation delay and concluded that the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation.

However, the defendants failed to establish actual non‑compensable prejudice affecting their ability to present their defence at trial.

The court allowed the action to proceed subject to strict conditions, including a deadline to restore the action to the trial list and limits on further discovery.