Karen Kisiel

The Dowdell Parties and York Condominium Corporation No. 403 ("YCC 403") each brought applications under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Dowdell Parties sought declarations of breach and oppression, an order for YCC 403 to maintain exterior windows using external equipment, and damages, arguing against YCC 403's access through their unit for maintenance.

YCC 403 sought declarations that the Dowdell Parties breached s. 19 of the Act by refusing access for anchor inspection/testing and window cleaning, and an order compelling access and provision of keys.

The court dismissed the Dowdell Parties' application, finding YCC 403's maintenance approach reasonable and no material harm or oppression.

The court granted YCC 403's application, declaring the Dowdell Parties in breach of s. 19 for refusing access and ordering them to permit entry and provide keys, emphasizing the condominium corporation's broad powers and the reasonableness of its access requirements for common element maintenance.

The appellant, Tharani Holdings Inc., appealed the dismissal of its application challenging the administration of a condominium corporation (MTCC 812) and its directors.

The original application alleged numerous technical breaches of the Condominium Act and regulations, seeking remedies such as director removal, inspector appointment, and the oppression remedy.

The application judge dismissed the claims, finding no evidence of substantively harmful conduct.

On appeal, Tharani Holdings Inc. argued that the application judge showed reasonable apprehension of bias and failed to grant warranted remedies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the bias claim and upholding the application judge's discretion to refuse remedies for technical breaches in the absence of actual harm or prejudice.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application seeking various orders against the condominium corporation and its directors, including compliance with the Condominium Act, invalidation of board elections, appointment of an inspector, and damages.

The applicant alleged numerous technical breaches of the Act and regulations, as well as mismanagement.

The court found that the alleged breaches were largely formalistic errors that caused no substantive prejudice or harm.

The court dismissed the application, emphasizing that technical breaches without demonstrated prejudice do not warrant the remedies sought, and declined to award damages or appoint an inspector due to lack of evidence of financial impropriety.

The Applicant sought costs for an application to enforce a Condominium Authority Tribunal order requiring the Respondent condominium corporation to produce records.

Although the Respondent eventually complied with the record production, it did so four months late.

The court found the Applicant was entitled to costs, rejecting the Respondent's arguments based on late compliance and an invalid offer to settle.

Costs were awarded on a full indemnity basis for the period of non-compliance (up to August 1, 2019) and on a partial indemnity basis thereafter, totaling $14,716.91.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order under s. 134 of the Condominium Act to invalidate the election of the respondent to the board of directors, alleging a commercial proxy for 33 votes was improperly counted as only one vote.

The court found that the commercial proxy was not present at the annual general meeting or the recount.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the proxy had been present, it would have been invalid because it lacked the required initials beside the candidate's name, contrary to the clear instructions of the meeting chairperson.

The application was dismissed.