Jackie Bartlett

This motion concerned the enforcement of a settlement agreement reached in open court regarding three complex estate applications.

The respondent, David Chong, sought to resile from the settlement, claiming duress, lack of comprehension, and fraudulent misrepresentation, and arguing the terms were unconscionable.

The court found David's reasons for resiling contradictory and uncorroborated, particularly in light of his former counsel's evidence.

The court dismissed the respondent's arguments, finding no inequality in bargaining power, no duress, and no fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the property as per the settlement terms and fixed costs against the respondent.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking compensation based on an alleged oral agreement for client referrals.

The defendant argued the agreement was for profit-sharing and that the matter was unsuitable for summary judgment due to disputed facts and credibility issues, particularly given the limitations on cross-examination under simplified procedure rules.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, as the conflicting evidence regarding the oral agreement's terms and the parties' credibility could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion.

The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed by consent.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application against the condominium corporation, the owner of the unit above, and the occupant of that unit, alleging unreasonable noise.

The Tribunal found that the occupant created unreasonable noise constituting a nuisance, and that both the unit owner and the condominium corporation failed to take reasonable steps to enforce the corporation's governing documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to comply with the governing documents and awarded costs to the applicant.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant unit owner's noise nuisance application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant complained of disruptive noise from water pipes, which she argued constituted a nuisance under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the noise resulted from the activities of another person, concluding it likely stemmed from the aging plumbing infrastructure.

As the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over repair and maintenance disputes under ss. 89 and 90 of the Act, the application was dismissed.

No costs were awarded due to the respondent's delay in raising the jurisdictional issue.

The applicants, unit owners in a condominium, alleged oppression by the corporate respondent and its directors regarding the conduct of Board elections in 2018 and 2019, particularly concerning proxy handling and candidate disclosure.

The application was converted to a summary hybrid trial.

The court found that the Corporation, through its property manager, acted in a manner that was unfairly prejudicial to and unfairly disregarded the applicants' interests by mishandling their proxies and improperly questioning them during candidate disclosure.

However, the court did not find malice or widespread oppression by the individual directors, characterizing their conduct as sloppy rather than oppressive.

The applicants were awarded nominal damages of $5,000, as their primary relief (changing election outcome) was academic due to the passage of time, and their claimed damages were not quantifiable.

The applicant filed a noise complaint against the condominium corporation, the unit owner, and the unit's tenants.

Upon learning that the tenants no longer resided in the unit, the applicant brought a motion to remove them as respondents.

The remaining respondents consented to the removal.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal granted the motion and ordered the former tenants removed as respondents.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application against the condominium corporation alleging that a newly installed spotlight-style security light was shining into her bedroom and causing an unreasonable nuisance.

The respondent argued the light could not be the source due to its angle and proposed other sources.

The Tribunal found that the light constituted an unreasonable nuisance and that the applicant presented credible circumstantial evidence that the new spotlight was the source.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to replace the spotlight with a baffled light directed downwards and to reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where the moving party was successful.

Despite the moving party's success on the underlying motion, the court declined to award costs to any party.

This decision was based on the moving party receiving an indulgence and causing a further attendance due to insufficient time scheduling, and the responding parties' unsuccessful opposition.

The court found that a fair disposition was to award no costs.

The respondent unit owner's tenant brought a motion for directions seeking to discharge a lien registered by the applicant condominium corporation.

The lien was for legal expenses incurred by the corporation in enforcing compliance with condominium rules regarding noise disturbances.

The moving party argued the lien was premature and illegal, as the underlying contempt motion was adjourned.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that legal costs for enforcing a compliance order are recoverable as common expenses under s. 85(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and that the lien was proper, subject to future adjustment.

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt against the defendant judgment-debtor for failing to comply with court orders to attend an examination in aid of execution and produce bank records.

The defendant had previously been found in contempt and warned of incarceration if he did not comply.

Finding no mitigating factors and a flagrant disregard for the legal process, the court sentenced the defendant to 60 days in a provincial correctional institute, with conditions allowing for early release if he purged his contempt by participating in a meaningful examination and producing the required documents.