John De Vellis

The applicant, operating a theatre in a condominium complex, applied for a liquor licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application due to objections from the City of Toronto, the condominium corporation, and residents.

The City and the condominium corporation consented to the licence subject to agreed conditions.

The residents objected based on safety and security cost concerns.

The Tribunal found no evidence that granting the licence would be contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal approved the application with the agreed conditions and declined to impose additional conditions requested by the condominium corporation.

Condominium unit owners sought removal of a certificate of lien and correction of a status certificate after the condominium corporation claimed additional legal costs under s.134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998 following a compliance order.

The corporation asserted it could add substantial additional legal fees as common expenses beyond the court-ordered costs.

The court held that s.134(5) permits recovery only of reasonable legal costs incurred in obtaining the compliance order, not costs incurred afterwards in attempting to enforce or escalate the dispute.

Finding the corporation’s claimed $41,599.45 unreasonable for a simple application largely resolved by consent, the court assessed the recoverable costs at $6,500 inclusive of prior awards.

The lien was ordered vacated and the corporation ordered to pay costs of the motion.

The appellant appealed a Tribunal decision finding breaches of the Mortgage Brokers Act and revoking its licence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no breach of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, ample evidence of regulatory breaches, and no apprehension of bias.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the penalty, finding the Tribunal erred in law by imposing licence revocation without allowing submissions on penalty, considering alternatives, or reviewing similar cases.

The revocation order was set aside and replaced with conditions on the appellant's licence.