Jonathan Fine

The applicant condominium corporations brought an application to regulate requisitioned owners' meetings called to vote on the removal of the current boards of directors.

The applicants sought to prohibit the use of proxies and limit communications among owners, alleging the respondent circulated misleading information regarding a special assessment.

The court dismissed the requests to prohibit proxies and limit communications, finding such orders inconsistent with the democratic governance model under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court ordered the meetings to proceed with an independent chair and awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The applicant unit owner sought an oppression remedy against the respondent condominium corporation under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, alleging that the corporation failed to adequately address ongoing water leaks in her unit, committed unauthorized entries, and acted abusively.

The court found that while the corporation's communication was deficient and it committed one unlawful entry, it had fulfilled its duty to maintain and repair the common elements by conducting extensive investigations and repairs.

The court concluded that the corporation's conduct, viewed in context, was not harsh, vindictive, or oppressive.

The application was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's appeal from an arbitrator's ruling, the successful respondent sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting that the applicant's appeal was largely without merit, caused unnecessary delay, and that the respondent had made a reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $18,008.88.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an interlocutory injunction and compliance order against a unit owner who engaged in a pattern of harassing and threatening behaviour towards condominium staff and residents.

The applicant also sought an order for a mental examination of the respondent to determine if a litigation guardian was required.

The court declined to order a mental examination, finding insufficient evidence that the respondent's mental condition was relevant to a material issue in the proceeding.

However, the court granted the interlocutory injunction, compliance order, and declaratory relief, finding that the respondent's conduct breached the Condominium Act and constituted workplace harassment.

A condominium corporation brought an application seeking various forms of relief against a unit owner whose alleged conduct raised safety concerns.

The court first had to determine whether the respondent was under a disability within the meaning of Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the appointment of a litigation guardian.

Despite a prior order directing a mental capacity assessment, no assessment had been completed and the respondent failed to appear or participate in the proceedings.

Based on affidavit evidence describing erratic behaviour and non‑compliance with court orders, the court concluded that the respondent met the criteria for a party under disability.

The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as litigation guardian and the application was adjourned to allow time for the guardian to prepare.

The applicant condominium corporations sought declarations of ownership, breach of trust, and oppression against the developer regarding a community clubhouse.

The developer had retained ownership of the clubhouse, subject to a mortgage, pending the sale of all remaining units and lands in the project, as set out in the disclosure statements.

The court dismissed the application, finding no trust relationship, no breach of the obligation to convey the clubhouse since the condition precedent had not been met, and no oppressive conduct by the developer in its management, mortgaging, or fee-charging for the clubhouse.