Jonathan H. Fine

The appellants appealed a decision regarding the remuneration of a condominium director and an agent.

The Divisional Court held that while s. 28(3) of the Condominium Act requires a specific by-law for the remuneration of directors, s. 28(1)(c) permits the board to remunerate officers and agents without a by-law.

The appeal was dismissed regarding Mr. Sisto, who was remunerated as a director without a by-law.

The appeal was allowed regarding Mr. Cianfarani, an agent of the corporation, as he could be remunerated without a by-law.

The appellants challenged a summary judgment dismissing their third party claim for negligent misrepresentation, the refusal to remove the third party as the plaintiffs’ solicitor of record, and an order striking portions of their statement of defence.

The court held that the motions judge applied the proper summary judgment test and correctly found no evidence on which the negligent misrepresentation claim could succeed.

Although the court expressed concern that Rule 20 was not the proper procedural vehicle to strike part of a defence absent a motion for judgment, it upheld that order because the impugned estoppel defence was based on identical factual allegations and would amount to an abuse of process.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.