Inderpreet Suri

The applicants sought an order declaring a condominium lien invalid and requiring its discharge, arguing they were not responsible for water damage from an overflowing toilet, that the respondent engaged in oppressive conduct (unreasonable deductible, overcharging), and that the lien was untimely.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicants responsible for the damage due to their act or omission (clogged toilet and broken shut-off valve), that the respondent's conduct was not oppressive, and that the lien was registered within the statutory timeframe.

The plaintiffs, developers of two condominium buildings, sought an extension of time to serve statements of claim against the respective condominium corporations for unpaid promissory notes related to guest suites.

The statements of claim were issued in March 2020 but not served until July 2022, past the extended deadline of March 2021.

The delay was attributed to counsel's inadvertence.

The defendants opposed, arguing abandonment and prejudice due to witness unavailability and changes in unit ownership.

The court, applying the principles from Chiarelli v Wiens, found that the plaintiffs intended to pursue the actions and that the delay was due to inadvertence.

The court rejected the defendants' claims of prejudice, noting their early notice of the claims and that any alleged prejudice was not caused by the delay or was speculative.

The motions for extension of time were granted.

The applicants, unit owners in the respondent condominium corporation, brought an application for an oppression remedy, alleging that the corporation's representatives engaged in coercive and abusive behaviour regarding noise complaints, repair issues, balcony storage, and the rejection of a board nomination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the conduct of both parties was less than ideal, the respondent's actions did not meet the legal test for oppression and were a valid exercise of balancing communal interests with private rights.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to invalidate a condominium lien, the respondent condominium corporation sought full indemnity costs of $23,905.99.

The court found that the conduct of the applicant's counsel was reprehensible, scandalous, and outrageous, including making unsubstantiated allegations of professional misconduct and fraud, failing to respond to communications, and acting abusively.

The court awarded the respondent its full indemnity costs to sanction this conduct and bring finality to the litigation.

During an application to set aside a condominium lien, the applicant's counsel was administratively suspended by the Law Society of Ontario.

The court convened a hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction to rule on the application and whether counsel should pay costs personally.

The court found it had jurisdiction to rule on the application as it was fully argued before the suspension was known.

The court ordered the applicant's counsel to personally pay $800 in costs to the respondent due to his failure to address the suspension promptly and communicate with the court, which caused unnecessary delay and expense.

A request to seal the endorsement was denied.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought an unopposed motion for an order for foreclosure on approximately a dozen parking spots owned by the defendant due to default on common area expenses.

The court noted the defendant was properly served but chose not to appear, inferring the defendant did not view the units as having equity exceeding the lien amount.

The court granted the foreclosure order, leaving the legal question of whether subsection 85(6) of the Condominium Act, 1998 strictly encompasses foreclosure for a future contested case.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion regarding roof leaks and parking lot issues against the defendant condominium corporation and property management.

The defendants brought a cross-motion.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment because she had not received the defendants' responding materials in an accessible format.

The court granted the adjournment and set a timetable for service.

The court also summarily dismissed the plaintiff's motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside a previous order denying the appointment of amicus, finding it to be an abuse of process as the rule does not permit re-arguing a decided matter.

The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1724 brought an application against a unit owner, Evgeni Evdassin, for a compliance order to replace defective Kitec pipes and for various other permanent prohibitory orders, seeking costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court granted the compliance order for pipe replacement, as the unit owner had largely consented to this, but dismissed the broader prohibitory orders, finding the Condominium had over-reached.

On the issue of costs, the court declined to award full indemnity costs, emphasizing that section 134(5) of the Condominium Act provides an enforcement mechanism for actual costs but does not dictate the court's assessment of costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, reducing the amount claimed due to the Condominium's partial success and over-reaching on certain requests.

The Condominium Corporation sought compliance orders against a unit owner for refusing access to replace defective Kitec pipes and for alleged abusive and interfering behaviour.

The court ordered the owner to allow access for pipe replacement and to pay associated costs, finding he had interfered with the work.

However, the court declined to issue broader, indefinite compliance orders regarding future conduct, finding the alleged misconduct was not sufficiently persistent or egregious to warrant such extensive restrictions, and that some evidence was inadmissible hearsay.