Christopher J. Jaglowitz

The applicant condominium corporation sought a compliance order against a unit owner who carried out extensive, unauthorized renovations that altered the common elements.

The respondent argued the application was barred because the applicant failed to mediate or arbitrate the dispute first.

The court held that mediation is not required for disputes regarding initial compliance with section 98 of the Condominium Act.

The court granted the compliance order, allowing the applicant to inspect the unit and restore the common elements, but found insufficient evidence to order a full repair of the unit under section 92.

A common elements condominium corporation sought to recover unpaid common expenses and interest from the unit owners of a related condominium corporation.

The court held that the applicable limitation period for the debt claim was two years under the Limitations Act, and claims arising earlier were statute‑barred.

The court further found that expired condominium lien rights could not be revived by recharacterizing arrears as damages under the Condominium Act.

Because the dispute concerned accounting and reasonableness of common expenses under the declaration and by‑laws, the court held the parties were required to pursue mediation and arbitration before litigation.

Most of the claim was dismissed and the remaining issues were directed to mediation/arbitration.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion for a finding that the respondent unit owners failed to comply with a previous court order requiring them to clean their unit and permit extermination of a severe cockroach infestation.

The court found the respondents in breach of the previous order and the Condominium Act, noting their continued refusal to allow entry and their persistence in living in unhealthy conditions.

The court granted a compliance order permitting the applicant to enter the unit to conduct necessary cleaning and extermination treatments, with costs awarded to the applicant on a full indemnity basis.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondents $59,379.91 owing on a first mortgage and possession of the property.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial, as the mortgage had matured and remained in default.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding no evidence that the mortgage was renewed or that post-dated cheques for the following year were negotiated.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment holding them jointly and severally liable for $105,647.98 in unpaid legal fees owed to the respondent law firm.

The trial judge found that the appellants, who were defendants in the underlying action, colluded with the plaintiffs (the law firm's clients) to reach a secret settlement designed to defeat the law firm's claim for its fees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellants knew of the outstanding fees and that the settlement, which lacked commercial reasonableness, was structured specifically to avoid paying the law firm.

The appellant appealed an order regarding his alleged failure to comply with the respondent condominium's pet rules.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the interpretation of a 2003 release and the compliance issue were intertwined and should have been submitted to mediation and arbitration under the Condominium Act before the respondent resorted to the court.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision refusing to enforce its 'no pets' policy against the respondent.

The respondent had lived in her unit with her cat for over 10 years, during which time maintenance personnel had been in her unit.

The appellant only decided to step up enforcement in 2004.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it would be inequitable to grant a compliance order given the long period of non-enforcement.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found the parties entered into a contract containing a performance guarantee, which the respondents breached, but limited damages to $1.00.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by finding a performance guarantee existed despite it not being explicitly pleaded as a term, and by failing to find it unconscionable.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's decision to order the parties to bear their own costs despite a Rule 49.10 offer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions on the contract terms were supported by the pleadings and evidence, and her discretion on costs was properly exercised.

The appellants appealed the judgment of Justice Spence of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the lower court's decision and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $3,000 plus disbursements.