Jamie Cockburn

The respondent and intervenor sought full indemnity costs of $43,706.71 following their success on an appeal brought by the appellant condominium corporation.

They argued that section 134(3) of the Condominium Act and the condominium declaration entitled them to full indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request, finding that section 134(3) applies to applications, not statutory appeals, and the declaration's indemnification provisions did not apply to an appeal of a tribunal decision.

Costs were fixed at the previously agreed partial indemnity amount of $17,500.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision dismissing its application to remove a second dog from the respondent's unit.

The CAT found that the respondent's partner required the service dog as an accommodation for a disability under the Human Rights Code, and awarded $15,000 in damages for discriminatory treatment.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the CAT did not err in law in its accommodation framework and did not breach procedural fairness in awarding damages or a common expense credit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The developer and the municipality brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review of a Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval.

They argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to the statutory appeal scheme and that the applicant lacked public interest standing.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding it was not plain and obvious that jurisdiction was ousted or that standing should be denied.

The court also partially granted a motion to strike portions of the applicant's affidavit, striking two expert reports but allowing correspondence and video evidence to proceed to the panel.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a costs award made by the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The Tribunal had dismissed the respondent's claim but awarded $200 in costs against the successful appellant because the claim was novel and the respondent was not unreasonable in pursuing it.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while novelty and reasonableness might justify not awarding costs against an unsuccessful party, they do not justify awarding costs against a successful party absent bad faith or misconduct.

The costs order was set aside.