Joseph William Ryan

Following a successful application to enforce an arbitral award requiring a unit owner to replace defective Kitec pipes, the condominium corporation sought full indemnity costs.

The court rejected the argument that the condominium's governing documents automatically entitled it to full indemnity costs, finding that the court retains jurisdiction to determine appropriate costs.

However, the court awarded full indemnity costs of $71,120.97 based on the unit owner's unreasonable refusal to cooperate and his abusive litigation conduct, which included making unfounded allegations and repeatedly ignoring court orders and procedures.

The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1466 (the "Condominium") sought to enforce an arbitration award compelling a unit owner, Stuart Weinstein, to replace defective Kitec pipes in his unit and pay associated costs.

Mr. Weinstein brought a counter-application to set aside the arbitral award, arguing lack of jurisdiction, bias, and fraud/corruption, and to remove a lien registered on his property for unpaid costs.

The court found Mr. Weinstein's application to set aside the award was out of time and, in the alternative, dismissed it on its merits, finding no evidence of jurisdictional error, bias, fraud, or corruption.

The court also upheld the validity of the lien, despite an arbitrator's error in including mediation costs in the arbitration award, as the Condominium's declaration and by-laws independently allowed for such costs to be treated as common expenses.

The Condominium's application to enforce the arbitral award was granted.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce an arbitration decision and a lien against the respondent's unit.

The self-represented respondent objected and filed a procedurally defective 600-page record attempting to add new parties and claims without issuing a proper Notice of Application.

The court held a case conference and issued directions, requiring the respondent to issue a proper Notice of Application to challenge the lien, while allowing his narrative materials to be treated as an affidavit for the purpose of cross-examinations.

The appellant registered a claim for lien against condominium units owned by the respondent for work supplied to the developer.

The Master discharged the lien and certificate of action, finding the respondent was not an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act and the appellant failed to properly preserve and perfect the lien by not naming the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Master's findings that the appellant had no valid lien rights against the respondent's units and affirming the Master's award of substantial indemnity costs due to the appellant's conduct.