Lauren Melissa Benoit

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a lien against the defendant unit owner for over $34,000 in legal costs incurred defending a Small Claims Court action, plus over $50,000 in costs for the current action.

The dispute originated from a $330 plumbing bill.

The court found that the defendant had paid all outstanding arrears and anticipated discharge costs early in the dispute, obligating the corporation to discharge the lien under s. 85 of the Condominium Act.

The court held the corporation's refusal to discharge the lien was unjustified and its claimed legal fees were grossly disproportionate and unreasonable.

The action was dismissed, and the lien and notice of sale were declared invalid.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by 2651171 Ontario Inc. The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined the quantum of costs for the motions for summary judgment and the action.

The appellant sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle made under Rule 49.10(1).

The respondent, Patrick Brey, objected to the quantum and argued for a reduction due to the appellant's unproven allegations of fraud.

The court found the appellant prima facie entitled to substantial indemnity costs due to the offer to settle, but ordered a reduction in the total amount awarded due to the unfounded allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation made by the appellant, emphasizing that such serious allegations require strict pleading and proof.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a real estate agreement's requisition deadline for off-title objections, specifically regarding the lawful use of a property described as a fourplex.

The appellant buyer raised timely objections about the property's legal use, which the respondent seller refused to address, leading to the transaction's failure.

The motion judge had erred by misinterpreting the deadline provision, deeming the objections untimely.

The Court of Appeal found the objections were timely and valid, as the property's lawful use as a fourplex could not be confirmed.

The appeal was allowed, the lower court's judgment set aside, and the appellant was granted the return of its deposit and damages.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal.

Following established jurisprudence, the court declined to provide reasons for denying leave.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $25,000.