Bruce D. Woodrow

A housing co‑operative applied for a declaration terminating a member’s occupancy rights and sought arrears and compensation after the member vacated the unit.

The respondent had accrued rent arrears and her membership was terminated by the co‑operative’s board, but she claimed she had vacated earlier and did not owe further charges.

The court found the co‑operative had not been informed that the unit was vacated until March 2014 and was entitled to arrears and compensation until possession was recovered.

The respondent received credit for a security deposit previously paid.

The court granted the declaration, ordered payment of arrears and compensation, and awarded full indemnity costs pursuant to the co‑operative’s bylaws.

Following settlement of an eviction application by a housing co‑operative concerning rental arrears and repeated late payments, the only remaining issue was costs.

The co‑operative sought full indemnity costs exceeding $21,000 pursuant to its by‑laws and the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent tenant argued the amount was disproportionate and would cause undue hardship given her financial circumstances and that arrears had already been paid.

The court held that while the by‑laws contemplated substantial indemnity costs, the court retained discretion to reduce the award where full indemnity costs would be unfair or unduly onerous.

Considering proportionality, hardship, and the simplicity of the application, the court reduced the costs substantially.

Following a successful application, the successful party sought $20,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The responding party raised financial hardship and referenced settlement negotiations that had failed primarily over the issue of costs.

The court reiterated that the objective of a costs award is to fix a fair and reasonable amount rather than to indemnify the successful party for its actual legal expenses.

Applying the principles articulated by the Court of Appeal in Boucher, the court reduced the requested amount.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 all inclusive.

A non-profit housing cooperative applied to enforce an eviction decision against a member for arrears and repeated failure to pay housing charges in full and on time.

The member had accumulated significant arrears and made sporadic or partial payments despite notice and an opportunity to address the cooperative’s board.

The board terminated the member’s membership and occupancy rights pursuant to the cooperative’s bylaws and the Co‑operative Corporations Act, and the member attempted an internal appeal that failed for lack of quorum at the general meeting.

The court applied a reasonableness standard and emphasized judicial deference to democratically governed housing cooperatives.

Finding the eviction decision reasonable and procedurally fair, the court granted the application, issued a writ of possession, and ordered payment of arrears and costs.

A non-profit housing cooperative applied for an order terminating a member’s occupancy and membership rights due to a prolonged history of late, partial, and non-payment of housing charges.

Although the respondent’s rent-geared-to-income subsidy dispute was eventually resolved and arrears were later paid, the cooperative maintained that eviction was justified based on repeated breaches of payment obligations.

The court held that the cooperative board’s eviction decision was reasonable and procedurally fair, noting that courts generally defer to decisions of democratically governed housing cooperatives unless unreasonable.

The respondent failed to pursue the available internal appeal process and provided no exceptional circumstances justifying equitable relief under the governing legislation.

The application was granted and a writ of possession ordered.