Jonathan H. Fine

The parties brought cross-applications regarding ongoing disputes over cigar smoke migrating between condominium units and unauthorized unit modifications.

The condominium corporation sought orders to remove humidifiers installed by the unit owners and to access the unit for repairs.

The unit owners sought declarations that the corporation breached its duties to repair and maintain the common elements, and orders dictating the contents of future status certificates.

The court found the humidifier issue moot as the owners agreed to remove them.

The court dismissed the owners' claims, finding the corporation acted reasonably in relying on its engineer's recommendations for repairs, and held it lacked jurisdiction to dictate the contents of a status certificate in advance.

A common elements condominium corporation sought to recover unpaid common expenses and interest from the unit owners of a related condominium corporation.

The court held that the applicable limitation period for the debt claim was two years under the Limitations Act, and claims arising earlier were statute‑barred.

The court further found that expired condominium lien rights could not be revived by recharacterizing arrears as damages under the Condominium Act.

Because the dispute concerned accounting and reasonableness of common expenses under the declaration and by‑laws, the court held the parties were required to pursue mediation and arbitration before litigation.

Most of the claim was dismissed and the remaining issues were directed to mediation/arbitration.

The applicant condominium corporation sought costs following an order requiring the respondent to vacate and sell her unit.

The applicant claimed over $117,000 on a partial indemnity scale or $125,000 on a full indemnity scale, including non-legal charges such as locksmith and security fees.

The court held that non-legal charges are not 'additional actual costs' under s. 134(5) of the Condominium Act.

The court also reduced the claimed legal hours, finding the time spent by a junior associate excessive and largely educational.

Costs were fixed at $58,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Costs decision following a successful condominium compliance application.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs after obtaining a ruling that another unit owner's use of a condominium unit as an accounting office contravened the declaration and that part of the declaration conflicted with the Condominium Act, 1998.

Respondents argued that the dispute involved novel issues, internal board conflicts, and that mediation had been offered but refused.

The court applied the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Partial indemnity costs of $4,900 were awarded against two respondents jointly and severally.

Following the dismissal of an application, the successful respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after being personally named in allegations of bad faith and oppression.

The court considered Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, the seriousness of personal allegations against individual directors, and an earlier settlement proposal that could have resolved the dispute.

Although the applicant had an arguable issue relating to an allegedly undisclosed liability in a condominium status certificate, the court found the litigation strategy unnecessarily complex and disproportionate to the amount at stake.

Balancing these factors, the court declined substantial indemnity but awarded substantial costs reflecting the respondents’ success and the unnecessary allegations.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 payable within 30 days.

A condominium corporation sought a declaration that a developer agreement and related by-law limiting the developer’s liability for construction deficiencies were void and ultra vires under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The impugned agreement limited claims against the developer to those available under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and had been disclosed to purchasers and registered on title.

The court held that the pre-turnover board had authority to enter into such an agreement and that limiting developer liability in this manner was not inconsistent with the Condominium Act.

The arrangement was part of the commercial framework under which the condominium project was developed and sold, and purchasers had notice of the limitation.

The application was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant condominium unit owner sought declarations and compliance orders regarding restrictive use covenants in a commercial condominium declaration.

The applicant operated an accounting office and relied on a declaration provision restricting multiple units from operating the same type of business.

Another unit owner provided tax preparation and financial planning services from its unit.

The court held that these services constituted operation of an “Accounting Office” within the meaning of the declaration, thereby contravening the restrictive covenant.

The court further held that a declaration clause purporting to relieve the condominium corporation from enforcing restrictive covenants conflicted with s. 17(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998, which obligates the corporation to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance.

The clause was declared unenforceable and deemed amended, and compliance orders were granted.

The applicant purchaser of a condominium unit sought relief alleging inadequate disclosure in the condominium corporation’s status certificate, arguing that undisclosed imminent roof repairs and expropriation funds rendered a subsequent special assessment inapplicable to its unit.

The corporation had received expropriation proceeds from a TTC project and placed them in the reserve fund to finance roof replacement.

A second special assessment was issued solely as an administrative mechanism to access those reserve funds and provided unit owners with options that resulted in no net financial change.

The court held that the status certificate’s disclosure did not result in prejudice because no increase in common expenses was required from unit owners.

The applicant was treated identically to other owners and suffered no financial disadvantage.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant sought costs following a motion to settle the powers and duties of an interim condominium administrator appointed years earlier without clearly defined authority.

The court reviewed the extent of the defendant’s participation and the value of the submissions, noting that many proposed drafting changes were stylistic rather than substantive and that the administrator had not taken an unreasonable position.

The plaintiffs neither filed materials nor attended the motion, and the administrator had acted pursuant to the court’s direction to clarify the mandate.

The court held that no basis existed for costs beyond partial indemnity.

Costs of $4,500 were awarded to the moving party in the cause, payable by the condominium corporation depending on the outcome of the underlying action.

Following a consent order requiring condominium unit owners to comply with quarterly fire safety inspection obligations under the Condominium Act, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The condominium corporation sought full indemnity costs pursuant to s. 134 of the Act, arguing the respondents’ non-compliance necessitated the application.

The respondents opposed on the basis of financial hardship.

The court held that the financial burden of obtaining compliance should not fall on innocent unit owners and that the respondents’ failure created fire safety risks requiring court intervention.

Full indemnity costs of $12,000 were awarded and ordered to be added to the respondents’ common expenses under s. 134(5) of the Act.