K. Boersma

The applicant developer sought an order requiring the respondents to remove a large shed built on their property, alleging it violated a restrictive covenant requiring the developer's approval for ancillary buildings.

The respondents argued they had obtained approval or that the covenant was unenforceable.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the restrictive covenant was vague, uncertain, and unenforceable because it gave the developer unfettered discretion to waive or modify restrictions without any defined criteria, failing to establish a valid building scheme.

The applicant, a former unit owner, brought an application under sections 119 and 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998, alleging oppressive conduct and non-compliance with the condominium declaration by the respondent corporation regarding unit renovations.

The applicant had sold her unit prior to commencing the application.

The court dismissed the application, primarily finding that the applicant lacked standing as she was no longer an "owner" as defined by the Condominium Act at the time the application was brought.

The court also found no oppressive conduct or unfair disregard of the applicant's interests, and that the alleged non-compliance with the declaration regarding architect/engineer certificates for decorative renovations did not amount to a breach of contract or warrant a remedy.