John De Vellis

The applicants sought the appointment of an administrator and inspector to oversee a condominium corporation, alleging oppressive conduct by board members regarding the administration of allocated cost contribution fees.

The court denied both requests, finding that the board's inability to meet was caused by the applicants' own bad faith conduct in refusing to attend meetings.

The court found no substantial misconduct or mismanagement warranting the appointment of an administrator as a last resort.

The applicants' concerns about fee administration were found to be reasonable but did not meet the threshold for intervention.

The applicants, owners of medical clinic units in a commercial condominium, sought the appointment of an administrator for the respondent condominium corporation due to alleged mismanagement, poor financial practices, and failure to comply with the Condominium Act.

The court had previously declined to appoint an administrator, giving the board time to address the issues.

Upon return, the court found insufficient progress, ongoing governance failures, and a lack of urgency in addressing repairs, cleanliness, and fairness among unit owners.

The court appointed an administrator, finding it just, convenient, and in the best interests of the unit owners.

The applicants, owners of medical clinic units in a commercial condominium, brought a motion to appoint an administrator under s. 131 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

They alleged severe mismanagement by the condominium board, including failure to hold meetings, underfunding the reserve fund, and neglecting repairs.

The court found substantial evidence of mismanagement and non-compliance with the Act.

However, noting the recent hiring of an experienced property manager, a new budget, and a special assessment to address repairs, the court dismissed the motion to avoid the significant costs of an administrator, allowing the board a chance to improve governance.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the applicants returning to court if sufficient progress is not made by January 1, 2025.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought a declaration of oppression against the condominium corporation under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, alleging failure to address noise complaints, security concerns, and maintenance disparities between different buildings within the condominium.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the corporation acted reasonably in addressing noise issues and that the applicant's other complaints regarding security and maintenance did not constitute oppressive conduct.

The court applied the two-part test for oppression remedy, emphasizing the objective reasonableness of expectations and deferring to the board's business judgment in balancing the interests of all unit owners.

The plaintiffs, developers of two condominium buildings, sought an extension of time to serve statements of claim against the respective condominium corporations for unpaid promissory notes related to guest suites.

The statements of claim were issued in March 2020 but not served until July 2022, past the extended deadline of March 2021.

The delay was attributed to counsel's inadvertence.

The defendants opposed, arguing abandonment and prejudice due to witness unavailability and changes in unit ownership.

The court, applying the principles from Chiarelli v Wiens, found that the plaintiffs intended to pursue the actions and that the delay was due to inadvertence.

The court rejected the defendants' claims of prejudice, noting their early notice of the claims and that any alleged prejudice was not caused by the delay or was speculative.

The motions for extension of time were granted.

The appellant, Antonio Duscio, appealed a 16-month imprisonment sentence for contempt of court, which was imposed shortly after a previous 12-month contempt sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's analysis of relevant legal principles or extensive factual findings.

The court noted that the appellant could secure early release by purging his contempt or providing a complete accounting of dissipated funds and assets.

The appeal was dismissed.

Antonio Duscio sought a review of a single judge's decision dismissing his motion for release pending the hearing of his appeal from a 16-month sentence for contempt.

The contempt findings related to concealment of assets to avoid execution on a fraud judgment.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to intervene, deferring to the motion judge's discretionary weighing of factors, and dismissed the motion for release.

The court declined to decide whether criminal or civil process governs such release motions.

Antonio Duscio, a defendant found civilly liable for defrauding a Paraguayan pension fund and serving his second sentence for civil contempt, sought release from custody pending an appeal of his sentence.

The motion judge, Sossin J.A., addressed the procedural question of whether the applicable standard for release was a stay of a civil order or bail pending appeal.

The court determined that a stay of the civil order, governed by the three-part RJR-MacDonald test, was the proper procedural route for release in civil contempt matters.

While leave to appeal the sentence was granted due to a serious issue regarding the proportionality of the sentence and its preclusion of parole eligibility in light of R. v. Bissonnette, the motion for release pending appeal was dismissed.

The court found that the balance of convenience did not favour granting a stay, emphasizing Duscio's history of flagrant and ongoing disregard for court orders and the unique purpose of civil contempt sentences to incentivize compliance.

The plaintiff sought a two-year custodial sentence for the defendant, who was previously found liable for multiple acts of civil contempt, including transferring assets to put them beyond the court's jurisdiction and failing to disclose assets.

The defendant, who was already serving a 12-month sentence for prior contempt, requested a conditional sentence.

The court found the defendant's conduct to be a flagrant and repeated defiance of court orders, warranting a strong signal of deterrence and denunciation.

The defendant was sentenced to 16 months in jail without the possibility of parole, with conditions allowing for early release if the contempt is purged.

This is an appeal from a contempt finding against the appellant for violating a non-dissipation and disclosure order.

The appellant was found to have failed to disclose beneficial interests in life insurance policies, concealed the whereabouts of a Ferrari, and disbursed funds contrary to the order.

The appellant argued errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact, including issues with pleading, the existence of assets, the drawing of inferences from circumstantial evidence, and the admissibility of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments, upholding the motion judge's findings, and affirming the application of the necessity and reliability test for hearsay and the principles regarding circumstantial evidence.

A condominium corporation sought an urgent order for tenants to remove their dangerous dogs after one attacked a resident and her dog.

Despite prior court orders to remove the dogs and muzzle them, the tenants brought them back.

The court found the tenants in breach of multiple orders and determined they were unsuited for communal living, ordering the termination of their tenancy and their eviction from the unit.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to invalidate a condominium lien, the respondent condominium corporation sought full indemnity costs of $23,905.99.

The court found that the conduct of the applicant's counsel was reprehensible, scandalous, and outrageous, including making unsubstantiated allegations of professional misconduct and fraud, failing to respond to communications, and acting abusively.

The court awarded the respondent its full indemnity costs to sanction this conduct and bring finality to the litigation.

During an application to set aside a condominium lien, the applicant's counsel was administratively suspended by the Law Society of Ontario.

The court convened a hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction to rule on the application and whether counsel should pay costs personally.

The court found it had jurisdiction to rule on the application as it was fully argued before the suspension was known.

The court ordered the applicant's counsel to personally pay $800 in costs to the respondent due to his failure to address the suspension promptly and communicate with the court, which caused unnecessary delay and expense.

A request to seal the endorsement was denied.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a compliance order against a tenant who engaged in bizarre, threatening, and dangerous behaviour, including exposing himself, threatening security with a knife, and vandalizing property.

The unit owner cooperated but opposed being held liable for costs.

The court validated service on the absent tenant, found his conduct breached the Condominium Act, the condominium's rules, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and ordered compliance.

The court also awarded $10,000 in costs to the applicant, holding both the tenant and the unit owner jointly and severally liable.

The applicant, a unit owner and former board member, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking an order for the respondent condominium corporation to produce certain board meeting minutes.

The respondent argued the meetings were confidential disciplinary panels and that the records related to contemplated litigation.

The Tribunal found that while the meetings were board meetings, the respondent was justified in refusing to produce the minutes under section 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998, as they related to contemplated litigation regarding disciplinary actions against the applicant and another board member.

The application was dismissed with no order for costs or penalties.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought an unopposed motion for an order for foreclosure on approximately a dozen parking spots owned by the defendant due to default on common area expenses.

The court noted the defendant was properly served but chose not to appear, inferring the defendant did not view the units as having equity exceeding the lien amount.

The court granted the foreclosure order, leaving the legal question of whether subsection 85(6) of the Condominium Act, 1998 strictly encompasses foreclosure for a future contested case.

The respondent was entirely successful in defending an injunction motion and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued that costs should be deferred to the judge hearing the balance of the application.

The court declined to defer costs, noting the uncertainty of the application proceeding.

While the court found the applicants' conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs, it noted their improper conduct in splitting their case and unnecessarily complicating the motion.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $60,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicants, who were the developer and manager of the respondent condominium corporation, sought an interlocutory or permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from evicting them from a Visitor Centre they leased.

The respondent had terminated the management agreements and the lease following a breakdown in the relationship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the termination of the agreements, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience strongly favoured the respondent, which needed the Visitor Centre to manage the property.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendant in civil contempt for violating a non-dissipation and disclosure order.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally breached the clear and unequivocal order by failing to disclose his ownership of certain life insurance policies, dissipating the proceeds of those policies by directing a third party to disburse funds, and failing to disclose the whereabouts of a Ferrari.

The court dismissed the defendant's evidentiary objections, admitting a third-party bank statement and an affidavit the defendant had sworn in a foreign proceeding.

The defendant was found in contempt.

The applicant, a condominium owner, submitted a records request to the respondent condominium corporation for various invoices.

The respondent initially agreed to provide some records but later refused, arguing the request was not solely related to the applicant's interest as an owner due to ongoing board governance disputes.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the records, as her interest as an owner was not diminished by the parallel disputes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the records subject to a reasonable fee of $30 per hour for labour and 20 cents per page.

Requests for a penalty and costs from both parties were dismissed.