Cheryll Wood

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal after the respondent condominium corporation denied certain requests for records relating to site work on the common elements.

During the mediation stage, the tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, finding that the respondent's denials were reasonable because the requested items were either ambiguous or did not exist.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent had discharged its duty under the Condominium Act and dismissed the application without proceeding to a full hearing.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, challenged the fee estimates provided by the respondent condominium corporation for the production of various non-core records, including bank statements, financial statements, and board meeting minutes.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent's fee estimates for labour, redaction, and retrieval from storage were generally reasonable, with the exception of a minor photocopying charge.

The Tribunal declined to award a penalty against the respondent, finding no unreasonable refusal to provide records.

The applicant was ordered to pay $1,000 in costs to the respondent due to unreasonable conduct and raising issues outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant, a unit owner, submitted a records request for the audio-visual recording of the condominium corporation's 2023 virtual annual general meeting.

The respondent corporation denied the request, stating it did not possess the recording, though its management company later obtained a copy from the platform provider.

The Tribunal found that the recording was not a record of the corporation under the Condominium Act, as it was not created at the corporation's behest.

The application was dismissed, and no penalty or costs were awarded, though the applicant was granted a two-hour window to view the recording at the management office.

The applicant, a unit owner and former board member, requested records from the respondent condominium corporation regarding advice from its auditors on allocating a property survey expense to the reserve fund.

The respondent argued the only existing document was an internal email chain, which it claimed was not a record and was already in the applicant's possession.

The Tribunal found that the portion of the email summarizing the auditor's oral advice became a record when accepted by the board and reflected in the minutes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the redacted email and reimburse the applicant's filing fees, but declined to order a penalty as the case raised a novel legal question.

The applicant, a condominium owner, requested a large volume of records from the respondent condominium corporation due to governance concerns.

The respondent provided most records but withheld quotes, explanations, employee T4s, and director emails.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the case, finding that the applicant was not entitled to explanations, employee records under s. 55(4)(a) of the Condominium Act, 1998, or emails between directors.

The Tribunal noted it lacks jurisdiction to address the applicant's broader governance concerns.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 3.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that she wished to withdraw her case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed without costs pursuant to Rule 43.1(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion to enforce payment of common expenses arrears, NSF fees, and administrative fees against the defendant unit owner, and sought leave to issue a writ of possession.

The defendant, along with other occupants, requested an adjournment, which was denied due to the defendant's long-standing arrears and lack of timely response.

The court granted leave to issue a writ of possession, ordered the defendant to pay additional NSF charges, and set prejudgment and postjudgment interest rates at 1% per month compounded monthly, as per the Corporation's by-law.

The determination of the full amount of common expense arrears and the quantum of costs was adjourned for a future case conference.

Following a trial where the plaintiff Condominium Corporation was substantially successful in collecting common expense arrears, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.

The plaintiff sought $58,448.97, while the defendants proposed $32,000.

Applying section 85(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and considering the plaintiff's unaccepted Rule 49 offer to settle, the court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $50,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be added to the liens registered on the defendants' unit.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a summary trial to determine the amounts owing under two liens registered against the defendants' unit for unpaid common expenses, charge-backs, and legal costs.

The defendants, who had a long history of conflict with the condominium board, disputed the charges and the validity of the liens.

The court found the liens were validly registered and upheld the common expense arrears and charge-backs.

However, the court disallowed the plaintiff's claim for compliance legal costs because the plaintiff had failed to attempt mediation as required by the Condominium Act.

The court fixed the total amount secured by the liens at $117,287, which included a 25% reduction in the legal fees claimed for the lien enforcement proceeding.

The appellants, condominium owners, appealed a permanent injunction issued by the Superior Court of Justice.

The injunction restricted the male appellant's communication and conduct due to a long-standing pattern of harassment, rude behavior, and interference with the condominium corporation's board and employees, in violation of the Condominium Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's jurisdiction, the appropriateness of the injunction under s. 134(3) of the Condominium Act, and the fairness of the proceedings despite the denial of an adjournment and the appellant's failure to file a proper affidavit.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellant was ordered to pay costs of the appeal to the respondent in the fixed amount of $16,800.00, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The appellant, Newton Wong, appealed a summary judgment that ordered him to pay common expense arrears to the respondent, Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476, and dismissed his counterclaim.

The appeal raised issues concerning the interpretation of statutory notice periods for condominium liens, the application of limitation periods to counterclaims, and vicarious liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that the lien notice was validly given, the counterclaim was statute-barred, and there was no basis for vicarious liability.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, in-person appeal hearings were suspended.

The appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal to a later date, while the respondent requested the appeal proceed in writing.

The chambers judge denied the adjournment, finding that the appeal could be fairly adjudicated in writing and that delay would prejudice the respondent, who was owed condominium fees.

The appeal was ordered to proceed in writing, with an opportunity for the parties to respond to panel questions by teleconference.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment seeking vacant possession of the defendant's unit due to unpaid common expenses, payment of arrears, and dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant opposed, challenging the validity of the lien notice and asserting his counterclaim for damages caused by the plaintiff's resident building manager.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding the lien notice valid under the Legislation Act, 2006, and dismissing the counterclaim as statute-barred and lacking an established agency relationship.

The Ottawa Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 671 brought a motion seeking declarations that Mr. Friend's conduct constituted workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and a breach of section 117 of the Condominium Act, an order for him to cease such conduct, and an interlocutory injunction restricting his communication with condominium personnel and residents.

The court found Mr. Friend's conduct, including physical assaults, verbal abuse, and persistent defiance of Board decisions and rules, to be unacceptable and a serious legal issue.

The motion was granted, and an interlocutory injunction was issued, along with an award of full indemnity costs against the defendants.

The moving party condominium corporation brought a motion to quash the self-represented respondent's appeal from a Small Claims Court order.

The underlying Small Claims Court order temporarily stayed the respondent's action for a forensic audit and records production, requiring him to transfer it to the Superior Court of Justice due to lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court held that the Small Claims Court order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore no appeal lay to the Divisional Court under section 31 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

The defendant, Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 73, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal from a Small Claims Court order.

The primary grounds for dismissal were that the Small Claims Court order was interlocutory, and thus not appealable to the Divisional Court under s. 31 of the Courts of Justice Act, and that the amount claimed was below the $2,500 appeal threshold.

The court found the deputy judge's order, which temporarily stayed the action pending a transfer to the Superior Court or dismissal for want of jurisdiction, to be interlocutory.

Consequently, the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the appeal was quashed.