3 total
Condo pad removal denied; corporation estopped by 40 years of acquiescence.
A condominium corporation sought removal of a concrete pad installed in the exclusive use common element rear yard of a unit approximately 40 years ago by a predecessor in title without a s. 98 agreement under the Condominium Act.
The court dismissed the application, finding the doctrine of laches applied given the corporation's decades of acquiescence -- the board conducted annual walk-throughs during which the pad was clearly visible, yet took no action until 2024.
The court found the corporation's principal affiant not credible regarding lack of knowledge, held that the board did not act in good faith, and ordered the parties to enter into a s. 98 agreement rather than require removal.
Leave to appeal arbitration award upholding condominium's ban on cannabis retail sales denied.
The appellants sought leave to appeal an arbitration award that upheld a condominium rule prohibiting the retail sale of cannabis from their commercial units.
The appellants argued the arbitrator erred in law by finding the rule consistent with the condominium declaration and by validating certain proxies used to pass the rule.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion for leave, concluding the alleged errors were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law as required under section 45 of the Arbitration Act.
However, the court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to grant a temporary extension for the appellants to wind down their business and dispose of perishable inventory.
Condominium corporation awarded $87,810.09 in costs against commercial tenant and landlord for noise compliance enforcement.
The applicant condominium corporation sought costs against a commercial tenant and landlord following a consent compliance order regarding severe noise issues from a restaurant.
The court held that the consent order did not preclude the applicant from seeking its additional actual costs under s. 134(5) of the Condominium Act.
Finding that the landlord and tenant breached the declaration and rules, the court awarded the applicant $87,810.09 in costs, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable.
