John D. Simpson

The applicant condominium corporation appealed an arbitrator's preliminary ruling that he had jurisdiction to determine whether the respondents' conduct was oppressive under s. 135 of the Condominium Act.

The applicant argued that oppression claims must be brought before the Superior Court of Justice and cannot be arbitrated.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator was correct in concluding that s. 135 does not oust an arbitrator's jurisdiction to consider oppressive conduct if the dispute falls within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement.

In an appeal concerning the property assessment of a casino in Gananoque, both the property owner and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought motions for disclosure of documents.

The Assessment Review Board applied the test of relevance and proportionality to each request.

The Board granted several of MPAC's requests for financial and operational documents relevant to its discounted cash flow valuation, subject to confidentiality agreements to protect the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation's commercially sensitive information.

The Board denied several of the owner's requests for being overly broad, disproportionate, or lacking established relevance to the issues pleaded.

This endorsement concerns the costs of a motion where the defendants successfully struck out the plaintiff's statement of claim, with leave granted to the plaintiff to amend.

The defendants, having been substantially successful on the underlying motion, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented plaintiff did not submit costs submissions despite being permitted to do so.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $5,500.00, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the plaintiff within 30 days.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's 47-page claim, arguing it failed to comply with pleading rules by being disorganized, argumentative, and lacking material facts for purported causes of action.

The court found the claim deficient, containing argument, law, opinion, and evidence rather than concise material facts.

While the claim was struck, the plaintiff was granted leave to amend within 90 days, with specific guidance provided on how to properly plead various torts, including constitutional rights infringements, breach of statutory duty, abuse of process, misfeasance in public office, malicious prosecution, intimidation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, civil fraud, defamation, and conspiracy.

The court emphasized the need for specific dates, connections to defendants, and supporting facts for each claim.