Jonathan Wright

The applicants sought the appointment of an administrator and inspector to oversee a condominium corporation, alleging oppressive conduct by board members regarding the administration of allocated cost contribution fees.

The court denied both requests, finding that the board's inability to meet was caused by the applicants' own bad faith conduct in refusing to attend meetings.

The court found no substantial misconduct or mismanagement warranting the appointment of an administrator as a last resort.

The applicants' concerns about fee administration were found to be reasonable but did not meet the threshold for intervention.

The applicants, owners of medical clinic units in a commercial condominium, sought the appointment of an administrator for the respondent condominium corporation due to alleged mismanagement, poor financial practices, and failure to comply with the Condominium Act.

The court had previously declined to appoint an administrator, giving the board time to address the issues.

Upon return, the court found insufficient progress, ongoing governance failures, and a lack of urgency in addressing repairs, cleanliness, and fairness among unit owners.

The court appointed an administrator, finding it just, convenient, and in the best interests of the unit owners.

The applicants, owners of medical clinic units in a commercial condominium, brought a motion to appoint an administrator under s. 131 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

They alleged severe mismanagement by the condominium board, including failure to hold meetings, underfunding the reserve fund, and neglecting repairs.

The court found substantial evidence of mismanagement and non-compliance with the Act.

However, noting the recent hiring of an experienced property manager, a new budget, and a special assessment to address repairs, the court dismissed the motion to avoid the significant costs of an administrator, allowing the board a chance to improve governance.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the applicants returning to court if sufficient progress is not made by January 1, 2025.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce an arbitration award against the self-represented respondent.

The respondent requested an adjournment to obtain counsel, which the court denied due to significant prior delays and the straightforward nature of the enforcement application.

Finding no pending appeal and that the appeal period had expired, the court ordered the enforcement of the arbitration award pursuant to section 50 of the Arbitration Act.

This appeal concerned a dispute between a condominium corporation and unit owners regarding persistent non-compliance with fire safety rules, which led to a lower court order granting the corporation a writ of possession and the right to sell the unit.

The appellants (unit owners) appealed, arguing the motion judge erred by not applying the oppression test under the Condominium Act, failing to consider the corporation's enforcement obligations, and making errors in factual findings regarding their compliance efforts and exceptional circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the oppression arguments were new issues not raised in the lower court and that the motion judge's factual findings, which were entitled to deference, supported her conclusion that the appellants failed to comply with clear court orders.

This appeal concerns a dispute between two condominium corporations regarding the cost of replacing shared electrical infrastructure (electric switchgear or ESG).

The appellant, Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 656 (656), refused to contribute to the replacement cost, arguing that the ESG was the property of the respondent, Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 519 (519), and its maintenance was 519's sole responsibility under their respective Declarations and the Condominium Act, 1998. 519 had successfully brought an application based on unjust enrichment, arguing that 656 would be enriched by continuing to receive electricity without contributing, 519 would be deprived, and there was no juristic reason for the enrichment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that all elements of unjust enrichment were met, specifically agreeing that neither the Condominium Act nor 519's Declaration imposed a statutory obligation on 519 to maintain the ESG for 656's benefit without compensation, and that the absence of a cost-sharing agreement did not constitute a juristic reason to justify the enrichment.

The appeal was dismissed.

Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 519 (CCC 519) brought an application seeking to compel Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 656 (OCC 656) and Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 522 (CCC 522) to share the costs of replacing a critical electric switchgear (ESG) located on CCC 519's property but serving all three condominiums.

CCC 522 agreed to contribute, but OCC 656 refused, arguing its declaration did not require it and CCC 519 was responsible for its common areas.

The court applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment, finding OCC 656 had been incontrovertibly benefited and failed to establish a juristic reason for retaining the benefit without contributing.

The court rejected the argument that the absence of a cost-sharing agreement constituted a juristic reason.

The application was granted, requiring both respondents to share costs equitably, with a reference directed for cost apportionment if necessary.

The applicant condominium corporation sought relief under sections 113 and 135 of the Condominium Act, alleging that the respondent declarant failed to adequately disclose the provisions of a Shared Amenities Agreement (SAA) and that the SAA's operation was oppressive.

The court found that while the declarant failed to disclose that future phases of the development would not proceed, the applicant did not prove this non-disclosure produced an oppressive or unconscionably prejudicial result.

The court dismissed the oppression claims, noting the applicant had withheld its share of expenses for over five years and should utilize the SAA's arbitration mechanism to resolve its operational disputes.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion to compel the respondent developer to answer questions refused during the cross-examination of a deponent on an affidavit.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide a proper refusals chart connecting the questions to the pleadings or affidavit as required by Rule 37.10(10)(a)(i).

Furthermore, the court held that the questions asked were overly broad, akin to an examination for discovery, and improperly sought information regarding shared amenity expenses that had already been ordered to be determined by arbitration.

The respondent condominium corporation sought an order requiring the moving party unit owners to sell their unit or comply with the condominium's rules following a series of disputes between neighbours.

The moving parties moved to stay the application, arguing the dispute must first be mediated and arbitrated pursuant to s. 132(4) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court found that the core of the dispute related to the condominium's declaration, by-laws, and rules, rather than statutory breaches of ss. 117 and 119 that would bypass arbitration.

The court granted the motion and stayed the application pending mediation and arbitration, awarding costs to the moving parties.

The applicant condominium corporation requested to schedule a short application for an oppression remedy because a unit owner refused to move a vehicle to allow for maintenance.

The court declined to schedule the hearing, noting that condominium compliance disputes must generally proceed to mediation and arbitration before court.

The court convened a case conference to determine whether the matter was properly before the court or should be diverted to alternative dispute resolution.

The plaintiff sought leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property based on an alleged joint venture agreement.

The defendants opposed, claiming the agreement was fabricated and signatures were forged, and brought a cross-motion to discharge a caution the plaintiff had registered on title.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the land and that the equities, including the uniqueness of the property, favoured granting the CPL.

However, the court granted the cross-motion to discharge the caution because it had been registered indefinitely in violation of the Land Titles Act requirements.

The applicant condominium corporation appealed an arbitrator's preliminary ruling that he had jurisdiction to determine whether the respondents' conduct was oppressive under s. 135 of the Condominium Act.

The applicant argued that oppression claims must be brought before the Superior Court of Justice and cannot be arbitrated.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator was correct in concluding that s. 135 does not oust an arbitrator's jurisdiction to consider oppressive conduct if the dispute falls within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement.