Jake Fine

This endorsement addresses two consolidated applications concerning a condominium unit owner's persistent anti-social and harassing behaviour.

The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2931 sought an order compelling the unit owner to sell her unit due to her breach of a prior injunction.

Separately, other unit owners sought a permanent injunction to restrain the unit owner and her family from further harassing conduct.

The court found the unit owner in breach of the previous order, noting that complaints to regulatory bodies (LSO and HRTO) made by her and her family were not bona fide and constituted harassment.

The court granted the order compelling the sale of the unit, deeming it the only available remedy given the owner's continued unacceptable conduct.

A permanent injunction was also granted against the unit owner and her parents, prohibiting contact and further proceedings without leave of the court.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful applicants.

The appellant appealed an order granting the respondent vacant possession of a co-ownership unit and the right to dispose of the appellant's interest to satisfy over $110,000 in unpaid damages and costs from a prior proceeding.

After a motion for a stay pending appeal was dismissed for lacking a serious issue to be tried, the court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant failed to respond.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding it was an impermissible collateral attack on orders made in the previous application.

The Applicant, 580 Christie Street Co-Ownership Inc., sought vacant possession of the Respondent's unit, leave to issue a writ of possession, and an order to sell the Respondent's co-ownership interest due to multiple breaches of the Co-Ownership Agreement.

The Respondent had failed to pay amounts due, acted inconsistently with other co-owners' rights, and failed to rectify breaches, including refusing access for repairs and pest remediation, leading to significant costs and ongoing litigation.

The court granted all orders sought, finding the Respondent in clear breach of the agreement and previous court orders.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a permanent order prohibiting a resident, Paolo Scotti, from residing in his unit due to disruptive and aggressive behaviour stemming from his mental illness.

The court found that Mr. Scotti had breached condominium rules but declined to issue a permanent vacating order, noting his mental illness as the cause of misconduct and his recent efforts to comply with treatment.

The court ordered Mr. Scotti to comply with the Condominium Act and condominium instruments but granted no further relief to the applicant, emphasizing the duty to accommodate and the lack of evidence of material breach of the prior interlocutory order.

The court addressed whether further steps were required to determine if the self-represented respondent needed a litigation guardian.

Initially, a capacity assessment was ordered with consent, but the respondent later withdrew consent.

Despite a physician's letter indicating mental health challenges, the court vacated the assessment order, finding no basis to conclude the respondent was a party under a disability.

The judge observed the respondent to be competent, logical, and fully understanding of the litigation, its procedures, and potential consequences, emphasizing the high threshold for compelling such intrusive assessments without consent.

This motion addresses the procedural issue of determining the respondent's litigation capacity.

The applicant, a co-ownership corporation, seeks an order to sell the respondent's interest due to a history of non-compliance, damage awards, and outstanding costs.

The respondent, self-represented, has a documented history of psychiatric conditions.

The court previously ordered a capacity assessment, which faced delays due to the respondent's inability to pay and conflicting information regarding consent and physician availability.

The court ordered an independent capacity assessment, to be paid for by the applicant, with a structured process for assessor selection and medical record release, emphasizing that the assessment is solely for litigation capacity and confidentiality of medical records.

The applicant corporation sought an order to sell the self-represented respondent's co-ownership interest in a residential building due to unpaid damage awards and costs orders totaling over $85,000.

The respondent provided a letter from his treating physician indicating serious psychiatric conditions affecting his ability to function and advocate for himself.

The court adjourned the application and ordered a capacity assessment, finding significant concerns that the respondent is a party under disability requiring a litigation guardian.

This application concerns a dispute between two groups of condominium unit owners regarding the election of a new board of directors following a previous court order for a turnover meeting.

Both groups held their own elections, each claiming the other's was invalid due to procedural irregularities or lack of proper notice/attendance records.

The court found both elections invalid due to substantive issues within their procedural flaws and ordered a new, properly convened turnover meeting within 30 days, with specific requirements for notice, candidate identification, and voting records.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant sought an urgent hearing due to the respondent's continued refusal to allow access to his unit and provide a key, in contravention of previous court orders.

This non-compliance raised significant health and safety concerns, including evidence of hoarding, pest infestation, and fire risk within the unit.

The court found the situation untenable and dangerous, granting the applicant's request for an urgent hearing and setting specific deadlines for material exchange and service, including alternative service methods due to the respondent's past refusal of personal service.

The applicants, a group of 44 condominium owners, brought a motion for a compliance order against the condominium corporation regarding the replacement of exterior windows, the reserve fund study, and the failure to hold annual general meetings.

The court found that the corporation had failed to hold an AGM and elect directors as required by the Condominium Act.

The court ordered the corporation to hold an AGM and elections as soon as possible, and directed that the new board determine whether a new reserve fund study or bidding process for the windows is required.

The requests for immediate orders regarding the reserve fund study and bidding process were dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application under s. 109 of the Condominium Act to amend its declaration regarding the maintenance and replacement of exterior windows.

The applicant argued that the declaration was inconsistent because it made unit owners responsible for maintaining windows, while also making the corporation responsible for common elements, which included the exterior windows.

The respondent unit owners opposed the amendment, arguing there was no inconsistency.

The court found an inconsistency existed and that it was unworkable to have individual unit owners replace their own exterior windows.

The court granted the application to amend the declaration and adjourned the respondents' cross-application regarding the procedure for replacing the windows.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent unit owner from using common areas, except for ingress and egress, due to a pattern of disruptive and violent behavior.

The respondent opposed, citing a robbery, unit repair issues, and mental health concerns.

The court applied the R.J.R. MacDonald test, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the applicant and other residents, and that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.

The injunction was continued until the main application for the respondent's removal from the unit is heard.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought a motion seeking a declaration that a new rule (Rule 19) enacted by the respondent condominium corporation's board of directors was invalid.

Rule 19 prohibited short-term leasing (less than six months) and deemed any person involved in such use a trespasser.

The applicant argued that Rule 19 was inconsistent with Article 4.9(e) of the condominium's declaration, which stated that no provision should limit an owner from leasing their unit for "any period of time whatsoever." The applicant also contended that paragraph 7 of Rule 19, deeming occupants trespassers, was inconsistent with the Condominium Act.

The court found that the board's interpretation of the declaration, which did not expressly permit short-term leasing, was unreasonable given the clear wording of Article 4.9(e).

Consequently, Rule 19 was declared invalid for being inconsistent with the declaration by prohibiting short-term leasing and imposing a minimum lease term.

Paragraph 7 was also found inconsistent with the Condominium Act, as owners cannot be deemed trespassers.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment against its former property manager and several related companies for fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiff alleged that the individual defendant orchestrated a massive fraud by rigging the tender process for repair work, falsifying contracts, and submitting invoices for work that was never performed.

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence overwhelmingly established the fraud and that the defendants' responding evidence was of no probative value.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for over $1.3 million in damages, plus full indemnity costs.

In a complex Commercial List case management proceeding involving multiple condominium corporations, lenders, and other parties arising from alleged fraud related to loans arranged for condominium corporations, the court addressed whether a previously scheduled separate hearing of a threshold issue should proceed.

The threshold issue concerned whether certain loans were enforceable against the condominium corporations.

Several parties withdrew their earlier consent to bifurcate the proceedings under Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that, absent unanimous consent, it lacked jurisdiction to compel a separate hearing of the threshold issue and therefore cancelled the proposed hearing.

The court instead directed that the actions proceed expeditiously to a consolidated trial with a structured discovery process and encouraged mediation.

Multiple condominium corporations brought motions under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to lift the automatic stay of proceedings following the bankruptcy of a property manager and his company.

The underlying actions alleged fraudulent mortgage loans and fraudulent overcharging in condominium management contracts.

The court held that the claims involved issues of fraud, complex contingent debts, and disputes requiring full adjudication with multiple parties, making the bankruptcy claims process inadequate.

The court lifted the statutory stays to allow four existing civil actions to continue and permitted a lender to commence two related actions, ordering that all six proceedings be case-managed together on the Commercial List.

The court also imposed terms limiting costs recovery against the bankrupt estates prior to discharge.