Joshua Martin Milgrom

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a judgment dismissing its claim that the disclosure statement was false, deceptive, or misleading regarding the disclosure of parking lease obligations.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's conclusion that sufficient information was included in the disclosure statement and that it was not false, deceptive, or misleading.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested financial records and records pertaining to a shared facilities agreement from the respondent condominium corporation.

During the online written hearing process, the respondent provided the requested records to the applicant's satisfaction.

The parties confirmed the issues were resolved, and the Tribunal ordered the case closed with each party bearing their own costs.

The appellant, a commercial condominium unit owner, sought to amend the condominium declaration to allow its employees access to recreational common elements (swimming pool, gymnasium, library, squash court) that were restricted to dwelling unit holders and their guests.

The application judge dismissed the application, holding that restrictions on the use of common elements need not be listed in Schedule F of the declaration under the Condominium Act.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding no error in the application judge's interpretation of the statutory provisions or his use of the zoning by-law to explain the declaration's proper interpretation.

The applicant, owner of two commercial units in a condominium, sought an order to amend the condominium declaration to allow its employees access to the recreational facilities, or alternatively, to reduce its contribution to common expenses.

The applicant argued that the declaration's restriction limiting recreational facility use to residential unit owners was inconsistent with the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the declaration properly restricted the use of common elements under section 7(4)(b) of the Act and complied with a site-specific municipal by-law.

The court also affirmed that condominium fees do not need to directly correlate with the actual cost of maintaining common elements.

This application concerned a commercial condominium owner's right to exercise an easement granted by a neighbouring condominium corporation for the installation of utilities.

The respondent condominium corporation argued that the applicant, by virtue of owning parking units within its complex, was an 'owner' subject to Section 98 of the Condominium Act, requiring board approval and a formal agreement for alterations to common elements.

The court determined that the applicant was not an 'owner' of the respondent for the purposes of exercising the easement rights related to its commercial unit in the adjacent condominium, and therefore Section 98 did not apply.

The court also found the applicant was a beneficiary of the easement and that a shared facilities agreement did not apply to the proposed work.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought a declaration that the respondent condominium corporation breached its maintenance and repair obligations under the Condominium Act, 1998, and that its conduct was oppressive.

The unit had suffered water damage and mould, rendering it uninhabitable.

The court found the corporation breached its repair obligations due to an unreasonable delay in addressing a long-standing water penetration problem.

However, the court dismissed the oppression remedy claim, finding the corporation's conduct ineffective but not oppressive.

The applicant was awarded damages for common area expenses, realty taxes, medical travel expenses, legal expenses, and general damages for interior repairs, but not for mental distress or special assessments.