Jonathan Fine

The defendant condominium corporation moved for partial summary judgment dismissing claims seeking declarations that unpaid common expenses and a registered lien were satisfied because the plaintiff owner alleged overcharged water expenses and unreimbursed repair costs.

The court held that s. 84(3)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998 unambiguously prohibits an owner from withholding common expenses even when making a claim against the corporation.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court found the issue was a discrete question of law with no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the concerns associated with partial summary judgment did not arise.

The motion was granted, the impugned claims were dismissed, leave was granted for additional counsel to appear, and costs were awarded to the moving party.

During a condominium dispute proceeding, the parties submitted documents containing sensitive personal medical information.

The Tribunal, with the agreement of the parties, issued a confidentiality order under Rule 21.5 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal Rules of Practice to protect these documents and the recording of a cross-examination session from public disclosure.

The Applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking condominium records.

The Tribunal dismissed the case without a hearing after finding it was vexatious, given the Applicant's prior designation as a vexatious litigant by the Superior Court.

The Respondent sought costs of over $12,000 for participating in the early review process.

The Tribunal found that bringing a vexatious case constituted an 'exceptional reason' to award legal fees under the Tribunal's rules, but reduced the quantum to $2,500 to balance consumer protection with deterring improper applications.

The applicant, previously designated a vexatious litigant by the Superior Court of Justice, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to provide certain records.

The Tribunal found that the application was an attempt to continue a dispute already determined by the courts and was brought for an improper purpose.

The Tribunal dismissed the application without a hearing pursuant to section 1.41 of the Condominium Act, 1998, finding it to be vexatious.