Jonathan H. Fine

The moving parties sought an extension of time to perfect their appeals from orders compelling the sale of a condominium and imposing a non-harassment order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding the delay unsatisfactorily explained, the appeal lacking merit, and ongoing prejudice to the responding parties.

The court awarded costs to the responding parties.

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.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a permanent order prohibiting a resident, Paolo Scotti, from residing in his unit due to disruptive and aggressive behaviour stemming from his mental illness.

The court found that Mr. Scotti had breached condominium rules but declined to issue a permanent vacating order, noting his mental illness as the cause of misconduct and his recent efforts to comply with treatment.

The court ordered Mr. Scotti to comply with the Condominium Act and condominium instruments but granted no further relief to the applicant, emphasizing the duty to accommodate and the lack of evidence of material breach of the prior interlocutory order.

The applicant, owner of a penthouse unit that is twice the size of other units in the building, sought an oppression remedy under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant objected to an amendment to the condominium declaration that changed the cost-sharing of common expenses from an equal share per unit to a share based on unit size.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision to amend the declaration to ensure equitable contribution to common expenses and adequately fund the reserve fund was reasonable and not oppressive.

The applicant's claim for damages was also dismissed.

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.

This application concerns a dispute between two groups of condominium unit owners regarding the election of a new board of directors following a previous court order for a turnover meeting.

Both groups held their own elections, each claiming the other's was invalid due to procedural irregularities or lack of proper notice/attendance records.

The court found both elections invalid due to substantive issues within their procedural flaws and ordered a new, properly convened turnover meeting within 30 days, with specific requirements for notice, candidate identification, and voting records.

No costs were awarded.

The moving party, a condominium unit owner, brought a pre-emptive motion under Rule 25.11 to strike the condominium corporation's Notice of Application and the supporting affidavit.

The underlying application sought to amend the condominium declaration to correct an allegedly inequitable allocation of common expenses.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the Notice of Application, finding it pleaded a reasonable issue.

The court partially granted the motion to strike the affidavit, expunging specific paragraphs containing inadmissible hearsay and scandalous statements, but left the majority of the evidentiary objections for the application judge to determine on a full record.

The condominium corporation appealed an order invalidating a lien registered against the respondents' unit for legal fees incurred in seeking compliance with a smoking restriction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the corporation could not use a section 85 lien to collect legal fees for a section 134 compliance matter without a court order.

The court also upheld findings that the corporation's conduct was oppressive, that it failed to negotiate in good faith, and that the smoking did not constitute a nuisance.

A case management conference was held to schedule and provide directions for an upcoming appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court ordered the appeal to be heard by a panel of three judges via ZOOM videoconference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities, using an electronic drop box.

The applicants sought costs of $91,250 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis following their success in a previous oppression application.

The respondent objected, proposing $44,134.20 on a partial indemnity scale.

The court reduced the applicants' claim by $7,910 for pre-litigation costs but allowed travel disbursements for Ottawa-based counsel.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs, finding the respondent's conduct sanction-worthy due to its unreasonable and aggressive litigation tactics, including breaching its own constating documents and failing to engage in good faith mediation.

The final costs awarded to the applicants were $83,340.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought a motion seeking a declaration that a new rule (Rule 19) enacted by the respondent condominium corporation's board of directors was invalid.

Rule 19 prohibited short-term leasing (less than six months) and deemed any person involved in such use a trespasser.

The applicant argued that Rule 19 was inconsistent with Article 4.9(e) of the condominium's declaration, which stated that no provision should limit an owner from leasing their unit for "any period of time whatsoever." The applicant also contended that paragraph 7 of Rule 19, deeming occupants trespassers, was inconsistent with the Condominium Act.

The court found that the board's interpretation of the declaration, which did not expressly permit short-term leasing, was unreasonable given the clear wording of Article 4.9(e).

Consequently, Rule 19 was declared invalid for being inconsistent with the declaration by prohibiting short-term leasing and imposing a minimum lease term.

Paragraph 7 was also found inconsistent with the Condominium Act, as owners cannot be deemed trespassers.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing its defamation claims against the respondents.

The appellant's principal had publicly demanded an explanation for the termination of a property maintenance contract, prompting harsh words from the respondents' property manager.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the defence of consent applied, as the impugned words were responsive to the appellant's inquiry.

The court also found no error in the costs award below.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought to restrain the sale of their condominium unit, which the respondent corporation purported to lien under s. 85 of the Condominium Act, 1998, for compliance and enforcement expenses.

The applicants also claimed damages for oppression.

The court found the lien invalid as the expenses fell under s. 134, requiring a court order, which was absent.

The court further found the corporation acted oppressively by refusing good faith negotiation, imposing an invalid lien, and attempting to sell the unit, awarding the applicants $9,679.75 in damages.

The court also set aside the corporation's decision not to grandfather the applicants' unit under a new non-smoking rule.

The applicant unit owner commenced a proceeding against the respondent condominium corporation for damages arising from disruptive repair work to the common elements.

The parties settled the underlying dispute but left the issue of costs for the court to determine.

The applicant sought costs of $21,419.81, while the respondent sought costs of $40,069.05 based on an earlier settlement offer.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that the dispute could have been settled earlier but that penalizing the applicant for not accepting a withdrawn offer would disincentivize cooperative settlements.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

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.

The defendants, Balance Residential Management Limited and Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation 2514, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss various claims made by the plaintiff, 1658410 Ontario Inc. (Advance Repairs & Maintenance), following the termination of a janitorial services agreement.

The plaintiff's claims included damages for lack of notice, unpaid invoices, interest, general damages for breach of contract, loss of business reputation, employee poaching, property damage, slander, and breach of a verbal contract for future services.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff only on the claims for 30 days' notice, unpaid invoices, and associated interest, which the defendants conceded.

All other claims, including those for general damages, employee poaching, slander, and breach of a verbal contract for another condominium, were dismissed as not raising a genuine issue requiring a trial, often due to contractual liability limitations or insufficient evidence.

The court addressed costs following a summary judgment motion where the plaintiff, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2051, largely succeeded in having three debt instruments (a promissory note and two mortgages) declared oppressive and significantly reduced in value against the third party, Georgian Clairlea Corporation ("Georgian").

The plaintiff sought costs as the successful party, while Georgian claimed contractual costs under the mortgages.

The court found the plaintiff to be the successful party and rejected Georgian's claim for contractual costs, citing Georgian's oppressive conduct as a "special circumstance" justifying deprivation of such costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs up to its November 2017 offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, totaling $150,453.20, after a minor reduction for excessive pre-trial costs and unused expert reports.

The moving party, assignee of the developer, sought summary judgment to enforce three debt instruments against the respondent condominium corporation.

The condominium corporation argued the instruments were oppressive due to inadequate disclosure to purchasers.

The court found the disclosure regarding the service unit mortgage and parking unit mortgage was confusing and insufficient, breaching the reasonable expectations of the purchasers.

The court reduced the principal amounts of both mortgages to reflect fair value and reasonable expectations.

The court also found a promissory note for land transfer tax was void for lack of a borrowing by-law and oppressive as it circumvented the developer's statutory obligation for first-year budget deficits.

The court awarded the condominium corporation amounts for common expense arrears, a first-year budget deficit, and reserve fund payments, and declined to appoint a receiver.

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.