Larry Ralph Plener

The applicant filed two cases with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request and issues with a Periodic Information Certificate.

The matters were merged and proceeded to mediation.

The applicant failed to move the matter to Stage 3 within the permitted time despite reminders.

The Tribunal ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant unit owner filed an application disputing an $800 indemnification charge levied by the respondent condominium corporation.

The charge was for a compliance letter sent to the applicant's tenant regarding alleged abusive behaviour, which the corporation characterized as workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and section 117(1) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under O. Reg 179/17 to hear disputes relating to section 117(1) of the Condominium Act.

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 applicant unit owner requested various condominium records, including historical meeting minutes and breakdowns of an extra occupancy assessment.

The respondent condominium corporation provided some records but refused others, stating they did not exist.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the corporation had a statutory duty to retain meeting minutes indefinitely, it could not be ordered to produce records that do not exist.

The Tribunal concluded the refusal was not unreasonable under the circumstances and dismissed the application without costs.

The moving party sought an interim distribution of 25 percent of funds held in trust from the sale of the deceased's residence, pending the resolution of a will challenge.

The funds were held pursuant to a consent order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no grounds to vary the consent order and concluding that an interim distribution was premature as the estate's liabilities were unknown and an earlier will might exist.

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.

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.