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 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 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.