4 total
Condominium owner ordered to permanently remove dogs and pay costs for breaching pet rules.
The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to enforce its pet rules against the respondent unit owner, alleging her two large dogs barked excessively, were off-leash on common elements, and their excrement was not cleaned up.
The Tribunal found the respondent in breach of the condominium's declaration and rules based on credible evidence from neighbours.
The Tribunal ordered the permanent removal of the dogs from the unit within 30 days and awarded the condominium corporation $8,273.56 in costs, including pre-litigation enforcement costs and a portion of the Tribunal proceeding costs.
Tribunal ordered sensitive personal information submitted as late evidence to remain confidential to protect respondent's dignity.
In a condominium dispute, the respondent requested to provide late evidence and submitted highly sensitive personal information in support of the request.
The Condominium Authority Tribunal considered the open court principle and the exception established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sherman Estate v. Donovan.
Finding that the dissemination of the information could constitute an affront to the respondent's dignity, the Tribunal ordered that the exhibits containing the personal information be deemed confidential and excluded from the public record.
Insurer's request for a new psychiatric examination granted; proceedings stayed pending Applicant's attendance.
The Insurer brought a motion for an order staying the arbitration proceedings pending the Applicant's attendance at a new psychiatric examination with Dr. Wiesenthal.
The Applicant had previously attended insurer examinations, but subsequently submitted a new OCF-19 claiming catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental or behavioural disorder), supported by new assessments.
The Arbitrator found that the proposed examination was reasonably necessary given the new information and the passage of time.
The Arbitrator ordered that if the Applicant failed to attend the examination by March 1, 2016, the proceedings would be stayed.
Summary judgment denied; statutory conditions do not apply to uninsured automobile coverage unless specified in contract.
The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a vehicle insured by the moving party, despite having a suspended driver's licence.
The other vehicle involved was uninsured.
The plaintiff sued the other driver and claimed uninsured automobile coverage from the moving party.
The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim and a cross-claim brought by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund, arguing the plaintiff breached a statutory condition by driving while suspended.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that under the Insurance Act, statutory conditions do not apply to uninsured automobile coverage unless explicitly stated in the contract, which was not the case here.
The court also held the cross-claim was not statute-barred.
