3 total
Condominium corporation's arbitrary renovation restrictions and elevator limits constituted unfair disregard of owner's interests.
The applicant condominium owner sought an oppression remedy against the respondent condominium corporation for unreasonably restricting his ability to renovate his unit.
The corporation had imposed arbitrary timelines and limited service elevator access to two 20-minute windows, ignoring the applicant's explanations that more time was needed.
The court found the corporation's conduct unfairly disregarded the applicant's interests, ordered a reasonable construction schedule, and awarded special damages for the applicant's temporary accommodation and storage costs.
General damages were denied.
The court dismissed the purchaser's claim for specific performance and awarded the deposit to the vendors.
The Ferawana family sought specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property from the Uracs, or the return of their deposit.
The Uracs maintained that Ferawana failed to close and sought forfeiture of the deposit.
The court found that the purchaser, Ferawana, did not comply with his contractual obligations, including a waived financing condition, and that the vendors, the Uracs, did not breach any duty of good faith or honest performance.
The court dismissed Ferawana's application and granted the Uracs' request for the deposit, finding no basis for relief from forfeiture.
Small Claims appeal allowed; trial judge erred by using a subjective test for contract formation.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for unpaid tree removal services and ordering it to repay garnished funds with punitive costs.
The trial judge had found no contract existed for the tree removal because the respondent subjectively did not intend to agree to it.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to apply an objective test for contract formation.
Based on the evidence, a reasonable person would conclude a contract existed.
The court also found the trial judge erred in awarding punitive costs under section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act without a principled basis.
Judgment was entered for the appellant.
