3 total
Tribunal dismissed unit owner's nuisance application regarding roof antennae, finding no unreasonable interference with enjoyment.
The applicant unit owner brought an application before the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that upgraded telecommunications antennae on the condominium's roof constituted a nuisance, annoyance, and disruption.
The applicant argued that the antennae unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of her penthouse unit and balcony, primarily due to their appearance and a speculative reduction in property value.
The Tribunal found that the antennae did not create noise or vibration, nor did they physically impede the use of the balcony.
Relying on established jurisprudence, the Tribunal held that a partially obstructed view over the roofline and speculative future loss of resale value do not constitute an unreasonable interference or nuisance.
The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.
Motion for disclosure of past conduct records dismissed as irrelevant to public interest hearing.
The moving parties, added as parties to an appeal of a Notice of Proposal to review a liquor licence application, brought a motion for disclosure of the appellant's corporate structure and past records of noise complaints.
The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Registrar's Notice of Proposal was based solely on the public interest provision of the Liquor Licence Act, not on past conduct.
Therefore, the requested documents were not relevant to the issues in dispute.
Online publication of a magazine constitutes a 'newspaper' for the purpose of libel notice requirements.
The plaintiff wrote a negative book review of the defendant's novel.
The defendant responded with an allegedly defamatory letter sent by email to the magazine's editors, which was published in print and online.
The defendant also faxed the letter to two other newspapers, which did not publish it.
The plaintiff sued for libel but failed to serve notice under s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.
The Court of Appeal held that the defendant could rely on the notice provision for the print and online magazine publications, as the online version constituted a 'newspaper'.
However, the faxes and the original email to the editors were separate publications not in a newspaper, so the action could proceed regarding those specific transmissions.
