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 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.

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 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 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 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.

A condominium corporation passed a by-law to lease four common element parking spaces to each unit owner to address a parking dispute caused by a popular restaurant tenant monopolizing shared parking.

The appellant unit owner, who leased her units to the restaurant, challenged the by-law as invalid, unreasonable, and oppressive.

The application judge dismissed the application.

On appeal, the majority upheld the application judge's decision, finding the by-law valid and reasonable.

However, Justice Weiler dissented, holding the by-law invalid because it effectively created permanent exclusive use common elements without amending the declaration, and unreasonable because there was no evidence supporting an increase from two to four parking spaces per unit and no practical alternative parking existed.

Georgian Properties Corporation (GPC) brought a motion to strike the factum of Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2051 (TSCC) in its entirety or in part, arguing that it raised issues outside the scope of the pleadings, contrary to a prior settlement agreement and court decisions.

The court found that the majority of TSCC's factum was proper, as many arguments related to the adequacy of disclosure or the exorbitant nature of mortgages, which were within the existing pleadings.

However, specific paragraphs alleging new claims, such as breach of agreements of purchase and sale or broader breaches of fiduciary duty, were struck.

The court denied GPC's request for the summary judgment motion to proceed before a different judge, citing efficiency and the judge's ability to remain impartial.

GPC's motion was deemed largely unnecessary, and GPC was ordered to pay TSCC's partial indemnity costs of $9,134.92.

The defendants requested a case conference to address their motion to strike the plaintiff's factum, filed for an upcoming summary judgment motion, arguing it contained allegations previously precluded by a prior court order.

The court, acting as Case Management Judge, declined to strike the factum or adjourn the summary judgment motion for a preliminary motion to strike.

Citing jurisprudence, the court emphasized that preliminary motions to strike documents should be discouraged and reserved for the most egregious cases, as questions of relevance and admissibility are best left to the judge hearing the main motion.

The court ordered that the defendants' motion to strike would proceed at the outset of the summary judgment motion.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's awards concerning the use of condominium units and associated costs.

The arbitrator had found the appellant in breach of a single-family use restriction but granted a nine-month grace period for compliance, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant sought to vary the compliance period and the costs award.

The court granted an extension of time for filing the appeal and leave to appeal on questions of law.

However, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's findings regarding the condominium corporation's duty to enforce, the non-waiver provision, and the commercially reasonable time for compliance.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

This appeal concerns a statutory interpretation dispute regarding the priority of a condominium corporation's lien under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The appellant condominium corporation obtained a compliance order and costs award against a unit owner in February 2011.

The owner defaulted on payment of the costs in March 2011.

The corporation added the costs to common expenses in August 2011 and registered a lien certificate in December 2011.

The respondent mortgagee held a first mortgage on the unit.

The central issue was whether the corporation's lien lost priority over the mortgage because it failed to register the lien certificate within three months of the default, as required by section 85(2) of the Act.

The court held that the default triggering the three-month perfection period occurred when the owner failed to pay the costs order in March 2011, not when the owner failed to pay the claimed common expenses in September 2011.

Accordingly, the corporation's failure to register within three months caused the lien to lose priority.

York Condominium Corporation No. 201 (YCC 201) sought leave to appeal an arbitration award and to have it set aside.

The arbitration concerned disputes among three condominium corporations regarding their obligations to fund a shared recreation complex under a shared facilities agreement (SFA).

The Arbitrator had ruled that the SFA did not require audited financial statements or compliance with the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) as preconditions for monthly operating expense payments.

The court found that YCC 201's grounds for appeal raised questions of mixed fact and law, not pure questions of law, and were therefore not appealable under s. 45(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

Alternatively, the Arbitrator's interpretation of the SFA was deemed reasonable.

The application to set aside the award, based on allegations of unfair treatment due to the Arbitrator's procedural rulings, was also dismissed, as the rulings merely determined the scope of an arbitration phase and did not preclude YCC 201 from raising issues later.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that converted an application into an action and ordered a trial, and relied on unsworn material from a responding party.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge had inherent jurisdiction and discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to receive the unsworn material in the interests of justice, and that the decision did not raise matters of general or public importance beyond the immediate parties.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, challenged the validity of a by-law passed by the respondent condominium corporation that leased common element parking spaces to unit holders.

The applicant argued the by-law was ultra vires, discriminatory, unreasonable, and oppressive, as it restricted her tenant's (a popular restaurant) access to parking.

The court found the by-law valid under the Condominium Act, not discriminatory, and that the Board's actions were not oppressive, as they were a reasonable response to a parking monopolization issue caused by the applicant's tenant.

The application was dismissed.