The applicant unit owner sought oppression relief under sections 37 and 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998, alleging unfair and bad-faith conduct by the condominium corporation in relation to service-dog accommodation, noise and access disputes, counsel communications, and other governance conflicts, and also sought relief under section 76 concerning an allegedly deficient status certificate.
The court held that most allegations of bad faith, dishonesty, intimidation, and procedural unfairness were not established, and found the corporation generally acted reasonably, including in retaining counsel, pursuing entry relief, and addressing building and noise concerns.
However, the court found one breach of reasonable expectations: the corporation became too entrenched and insufficiently responsive in accommodating two service dogs, amounting to unfair prejudice and unfair disregard, though not oppression.
A declaration was granted on that limited basis, but no compensation was awarded because prior CAT damages had already compensated the same accommodation-related harm and double recovery would be inappropriate.
The status-certificate claim was dismissed for failure to prove a material misstatement or omission.
