Howard Wright

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his claim for indemnification against the respondent condominium corporation and refusing to vacate a lien.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the indemnification claim was barred by res judicata as a collateral attack on a prior decision finding the appellant acted in bad faith as a director, and that the lien was validly registered.

The court affirmed that the lien could be revised in accordance with the motion judge's order without affecting its underlying validity.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for indemnification as a former director and to vacate a condominium lien.

The defendant sought summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for indemnification, finding it barred by res judicata and the limitation period, and upheld the validity of the lien under the Condominium Act.

However, the court ordered the defendant to recalculate and reduce the lien amount, as it included unauthorized costs.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant vendor appealed a Small Claims Court judgment limiting her damages for a failed condominium assignment transaction based on a mutual release.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in concluding the release was binding, as it lacked the required signature of the realtor, and erred in finding the appellant was estopped from challenging its validity.

The court set aside the trial judgment, recalculated the appellant's damages for the respondents' breach of contract, and awarded her a net sum of $10,911.90 from the deposit.

During a family law proceeding, the responding spouse convened a teleconference to address disclosure issues arising from a prior consent order requiring financial disclosure.

The other party had failed to produce several required documents, including tax returns, proof of business income, and bank and credit card statements.

The court rejected the request for a 30‑day extension, noting the party could have complied with the prior order by providing an affidavit detailing efforts to obtain the documents and authorizing third parties to produce them.

The court ordered compliance within two weeks and granted leave to the other party to bring a motion to strike pleadings on financial issues if disclosure was not provided.

The appellant, a unit owner and former director of the respondent condominium corporation, appealed a costs order made against him.

The application judge had ordered the appellant to pay $45,000 in costs but failed to clearly determine whether the appellant had acted in bad faith or was merely negligent, which was critical to determining his entitlement to indemnification under the condominium's by-laws.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the costs order, and remitted the matter to the application judge to clarify the findings and reassess the costs.

Following a successful motion permitting the mother to travel internationally with the parties’ children without the father’s consent, the court addressed costs under the Family Law Rules.

The mother sought $5,573.65 in costs, while the father argued that no costs or a reduced amount should be ordered.

Applying Rule 24, the court considered the presumption that the successful party receives costs, the complexity and importance of the issues, the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, and the rates and hours claimed.

Although the matter was straightforward, it was significant to the parties and the children.

The court awarded reduced costs reflecting fairness and proportionality.

The responding parent brought a motion seeking permission to travel internationally with the parties’ two children without the other parent’s consent.

The moving parent opposed the request, asserting a risk the children would not be returned to Ontario.

The court found insufficient reliable evidence to support the alleged risk of non‑return and noted the responding parent’s long-standing ties to Canada and the children’s established residence there.

The court also considered that the destination country was a Hague Convention signatory and that maintaining contact with extended family was in the children’s best interests.

The motion was granted, permitting the temporary two‑week trip subject to communication and disclosure conditions.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing several defamation claims arising from a condominium requisition notice seeking his removal as president of the condominium board.

The appellate court found that the impugned words stating that the appellant failed to act honestly and in good faith were capable of being defamatory and that certain respondents had participated in publication of the material.

However, the court held that the respondents established the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege in the condominium governance context.

The evidence demonstrated a factual foundation for the statements relating to the appellant’s conduct as president.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation sought declarations that the respondent, a former director, breached his duties under the Condominium Act and should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The respondent brought a cross-application seeking the removal of other directors and claiming oppression.

The court found that the respondent breached his duties as a director by acting unilaterally, rendering the board dysfunctional, and failing to exercise the care of a reasonably prudent person.

However, the court declined to declare him a vexatious litigant or grant a sweeping injunction against him.

The respondent's cross-application was dismissed in its entirety, as the court found no bad faith by the other directors and no breach of the respondent's reasonable expectations to support an oppression claim.

In an oppression application under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the applicants sought interim relief authorizing a corporation to proceed with litigation against a third party and to amend an earlier order to permit them to sign corporate cheques to fund litigation and reimburse certain expenses.

The respondent opposed the motion and brought a cross‑motion seeking payment or preservation of alleged shareholder allowances and corporate expense reimbursements.

The court held that only limited interim relief was appropriate because the substantive issues in the oppression proceeding could not be determined at this stage.

The court authorized a $65,000 corporate payment to fund independent counsel for the litigation but preserved the existing order requiring dual signatures for other corporate payments.

Other reimbursement claims were deferred to the hearing of the oppression application.