Jordan Cowman

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for core and non-core records to the respondent condominium corporation.

The applicant alleged that the respondent failed to provide the records within the prescribed time, provided inadequate records, and sought a penalty and costs.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent met the prescribed timelines and provided adequate records for most requests, including contracts, notices of change, and proxy forms.

However, the Tribunal found that the record of leased units provided under section 83 of the Condominium Act was inadequate and ordered the respondent to provide a proper list.

The Tribunal found no refusal to provide records without reasonable excuse, declined to order a penalty, and ordered that no costs were payable by either party.

Peel Condominium Corporation No. 223 (PCC 223) commenced an action seeking possession and sale of a unit owned by Lai-Ming Tung due to alleged default in common expenses, claiming a valid lien.

PCC 223 asserted that Ms. Tung's acts or omissions, specifically regarding the disconnection and replacement of her HVAC unit during roof repairs, caused damage to common elements and incurred extra costs.

The court found that the expenses claimed by PCC 223 were not attributable to Ms. Tung's acts or omissions.

The evidence did not support the claim that Ms. Tung failed to properly disconnect her HVAC unit or that her new HVAC installation caused damage justifying the charges.

Consequently, the court determined there was no valid basis for the lien.

The action was dismissed, and the lien was ordered to be discharged.

The applicants, unit owners in a condominium, alleged oppression by the corporate respondent and its directors regarding the conduct of Board elections in 2018 and 2019, particularly concerning proxy handling and candidate disclosure.

The application was converted to a summary hybrid trial.

The court found that the Corporation, through its property manager, acted in a manner that was unfairly prejudicial to and unfairly disregarded the applicants' interests by mishandling their proxies and improperly questioning them during candidate disclosure.

However, the court did not find malice or widespread oppression by the individual directors, characterizing their conduct as sloppy rather than oppressive.

The applicants were awarded nominal damages of $5,000, as their primary relief (changing election outcome) was academic due to the passage of time, and their claimed damages were not quantifiable.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment seeking immediate vacant possession of the respondent's unit to sell it and satisfy a lien of over $20,000, which originated from legal fees for a 'cease and desist' letter regarding noise complaints.

The respondent, a self-represented unit owner, disputed the fees and requested a stay to pursue mediation.

The court dismissed the motion and stayed the proceeding, finding that the Condominium Act mandates mediation and arbitration for such disputes, and criticized the corporation for escalating the matter instead of pursuing informal resolution.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce an arbitration award against the respondent condominium corporation and their shared property manager.

The applicant also sought an injunction and an oppression remedy regarding disputed chargebacks and ongoing management fees.

The court granted the order enforcing the arbitration award but dismissed the requests for an injunction and oppression remedy, finding that the parties' agreements required those disputes to be resolved through arbitration.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, failed to attend the virtual hearing despite receiving notice.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims regarding condominium liens and related disputes were either barred by a full and final release signed in a 2009 action, statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, or raised no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.

Following a successful application by the condominium corporation for oppression and compliance orders, the applicant sought $155,000 in full indemnity costs.

The respondent unit owner's extreme demands for disability accommodation and unreasonable litigation conduct significantly increased the costs of the proceeding.

The court found that while the respondent's conduct was egregious, an elevated scale of costs was not warranted as the applicant did not beat its settlement offers.

The court awarded $75,000 in partial indemnity costs, noting the applicant's right to recover further costs under section 134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order restricting a unit owner from harassing the board, contractors, and other residents, and compelling him to allow access to his unit for repairs.

The respondent, who suffers from severe disabilities, requested an adjournment to file evidence and argued his actions were requests for accommodation.

The court denied the adjournment, finding it would cause undue hardship to the applicant.

As the respondent had moved out and agreed to most of the relief sought, the court granted the order, restricting his communications with the corporation to his real estate lawyer for the purpose of selling his unit, finding his previous volume of emails oppressive under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment and default judgment to enforce a lien against the defendants' unit for unpaid common expenses, including an insurance deductible chargeback and associated interest.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendants acknowledged the debt and the plaintiff provided a revised calculation removing disputed legal costs and related interest.

The court granted judgment for $4,883.33 and fixed the plaintiff's costs at $10,000, significantly reducing the claimed amount of $39,535.53.

The plaintiff condominium corporation moved for summary judgment to enforce a lien against the defendant's unit for unpaid repair and legal costs.

The dispute arose from damage caused to a new roof during HVAC unit replacement, which the plaintiff attributed to the defendant's unauthorized actions.

The defendant denied responsibility, asserting her HVAC unit was not strapped down as alleged.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of credibility requiring oral evidence, which could not be resolved on the paper record or through the new fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1) and (2.2).

The court also declined partial summary judgment on a secondary issue regarding lien registration timeliness, reserving all issues for trial.