Jamie Cockburn

The applicant condominium corporation sought a compliance order against the respondent unit owner for breaching a prior settlement agreement.

The corporation alleged the respondent continued to store materials on the common elements, park in loading areas for unreasonable times, and dispose of business waste in the corporation's bins.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the respondent in breach of the agreement based on photographic and video evidence.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the settlement agreement and awarded $11,150 in costs to the corporation.

The respondent and intervenor sought full indemnity costs of $43,706.71 following their success on an appeal brought by the appellant condominium corporation.

They argued that section 134(3) of the Condominium Act and the condominium declaration entitled them to full indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request, finding that section 134(3) applies to applications, not statutory appeals, and the declaration's indemnification provisions did not apply to an appeal of a tribunal decision.

Costs were fixed at the previously agreed partial indemnity amount of $17,500.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision dismissing its application to remove a second dog from the respondent's unit.

The CAT found that the respondent's partner required the service dog as an accommodation for a disability under the Human Rights Code, and awarded $15,000 in damages for discriminatory treatment.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the CAT did not err in law in its accommodation framework and did not breach procedural fairness in awarding damages or a common expense credit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The developer and the municipality brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review of a Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval.

They argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to the statutory appeal scheme and that the applicant lacked public interest standing.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding it was not plain and obvious that jurisdiction was ousted or that standing should be denied.

The court also partially granted a motion to strike portions of the applicant's affidavit, striking two expert reports but allowing correspondence and video evidence to proceed to the panel.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a request for condominium records.

The respondent condominium corporation refused the request on the basis that the applicant was not the registered owner of the unit.

The Tribunal found that under the Condominium Act, 1998, only an owner, purchaser, or mortgagee may request records or apply to the Tribunal.

As the applicant's wife was the registered owner, the applicant lacked standing.

The parties consented to the dismissal of the case during mediation, with the respondent agreeing to process a deemed request from the applicant's wife.

The Applicant unit owner submitted multiple requests for condominium records to the Respondent corporation.

The Respondent failed to provide many of the records until the Tribunal proceedings commenced and admitted it did not maintain mandatory board meeting minutes.

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to produce the requested records, create a record of past board decisions, and maintain proper minutes going forward.

The Tribunal also ordered the Respondent's directors to retake mandatory training and awarded the Applicant his $200 filing fee and a $3,000 penalty against the Respondent for its egregious failure to maintain and provide records.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested copies of the condominium corporation's legal invoices for the preceding twelve months.

The corporation refused, citing solicitor-client privilege.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while legal invoices are presumptively privileged, the presumption can be rebutted if disclosure of the fee amounts would not reveal privileged communications.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to provide the invoices, redacted to remove descriptions of services, hours billed, hourly rates, specific counsel names, and dates, leaving only the total amounts.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty against the corporation but awarded the applicant $200 in costs for Tribunal fees.

A condominium unit owner requested copies of legal invoices related to the corporation's 2020 virtual AGM to understand the costs involved.

The condominium corporation refused, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the narrative descriptions and itemized fees in the invoices were privileged, the total amounts were not, as their disclosure would not reveal confidential communications.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to provide redacted invoices showing the total amounts, declined to impose a penalty for the initial refusal, and awarded the owner $200 in costs for Tribunal fees.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a costs award made by the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The Tribunal had dismissed the respondent's claim but awarded $200 in costs against the successful appellant because the claim was novel and the respondent was not unreasonable in pursuing it.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while novelty and reasonableness might justify not awarding costs against an unsuccessful party, they do not justify awarding costs against a successful party absent bad faith or misconduct.

The costs order was set aside.