Michael A. Spears

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought an oppression remedy under s. 135 of the Condominium Act against the condominium corporation, its board members, and property management.

The applicant alleged that the board unfairly disregarded her interests by approving a neighbouring unit's non-compliant rooftop terrace renovation without prior notice or consultation, as required by s. 98 of the Act.

The court found that the condominium corporation's failure to consult the applicant breached her reasonable expectations and constituted an unfair disregard of her interests.

The court awarded the applicant $45,000 in damages against the condominium corporation, but dismissed the claims against the individual board members and property management.

The applicant condominium corporation sought compliance orders against a unit owner for unauthorized video surveillance in the mailroom and abusive communications directed at staff and board members.

The respondent admitted to the actions but argued they were provoked by election interference (vandalism of campaign posters) and a prolonged lack of hot water in her unit, which impacted her and her spouse's health due to pre-existing medical conditions.

The court found the respondent's conduct contravened the Condominium Act but acknowledged the significant provocation.

While granting the compliance orders, the court denied the applicant's request for full indemnity costs, citing shared responsibility and the more serious nature of the wrongs committed against the respondent.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision awarding $84,830 for a warranty claim regarding common elements, rather than the $1.5 million sought.

The LAT found that only one deficiency (gaps in caulking) was covered by the first-year warranty and that the appellant's extensive repair work went beyond what was required to fix that deficiency.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the LAT's decision, finding no error of law in the LAT's conclusion that under s. 44 of the Condominium Act, a performance audit must identify the deficiency, not merely the symptom (such as water penetration).

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the LAT's factual findings regarding the scope of consequential damages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, the former developer of a condominium, appealed the dismissal of its application to declare the respondent condominium corporation's notices of sale against its units null and void.

The appellant had refused to pay common expenses and a special assessment levied by the new owner-elected board after the appellant turned over control with depleted accounts.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the special assessment was validly levied under an adopted budget and that the notice provided sufficient and accurate reasons.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the application judge dismissing her claim for orders to change the respondent condominium corporation's budget and repair schedule, remove the individual respondent from the board, and obtain ancillary relief.

The appellant sought to introduce new evidence post-hearing to demonstrate that the corporation's assets were in danger and that the board was mismanaging the corporation.

The Court of Appeal declined to retry the application on a new evidentiary record, finding it was not the function of the appellate court and would be fundamentally unfair to the respondents.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

This is a costs endorsement following an unsuccessful application by Catharine Patricia Patterson.

The successful respondent, York Condominium Corporation No. 70, sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing for deterrence against unmeritorious lawsuits.

The unsuccessful applicant requested partial indemnity costs in her favour, despite losing the application.

The court, applying Rules 49 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, found the applicant's submissions unacceptable and the respondent's request for substantial indemnity costs unwarranted.

While agreeing the application lacked merit, the court did not find the threshold for substantial indemnity met.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs of $14,646, to be paid by the applicant.

The applicant sought declarations and orders against the condominium corporation and a board member for alleged failures to fulfill obligations under the Condominium Act, including inadequate funding of reserve accounts, failure to increase common expenses, and neglect of necessary repairs.

The respondents argued that the issues were being addressed by a new management company and that the business judgment rule applied.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the board had acted unfairly or unreasonably, or that court intervention was required.

The appellant condominium corporation terminated its management agreement with the respondent for cause.

The respondent sued in Small Claims Court for breach of contract, but the trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the respondent's conduct cumulatively amounted to gross negligence or recklessness.

The Divisional Court set aside the trial judgment, holding the reasons were insufficient for appellate review.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the trial judgment, finding the Divisional Court erred by failing to read the reasons in the context of the trial record and the informal nature of the Small Claims Court.

The applicant brought an oppression application arising from prolonged noise and vibration from elevators and mechanical equipment affecting a condominium unit.

The court held that the condominium corporation failed to adequately repair and maintain the common elements after years of investigation with little meaningful action, and that its reliance on an alleged by-law issue concerning a converted room was a red herring.

Applying the oppression framework, the court found the applicant's reasonable expectations were breached and that the respondent's conduct amounted to oppression, unfair prejudice, and unfair disregard.

The court awarded $30,000 in damages, dismissed the records-production and $150 fee claims, and remained seized to supervise remedial steps.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for relief under ss. 134 and 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge's reasons were inadequate.

The application judge failed to appreciate the issues, did not set out the correct legal test for oppression, provided no basis for concluding there were no breaches of the Act, and failed to explain the exercise of his discretion.

The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

Two condominium corporations brought a motion to stay an action commenced by another condominium corporation concerning disputes under a shared facilities agreement governing a multi-building condominium development.

The plaintiff sought oppression relief under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998 and argued that such claims were not arbitrable and must be determined by the court.

The moving parties relied on a broad arbitration clause and the mediation-arbitration framework under s. 132 of the Act.

Applying the competence-competence principle under the Arbitration Act, 1991, the court held that it was at least arguable that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the arbitrator should determine jurisdiction in the first instance.

The proceeding was stayed and the dispute directed to mediation and, failing settlement, arbitration.

The moving parties sought an order converting an application into an action in a dispute between condominium corporations concerning alleged oppressive conduct and administration of a shared facilities agreement.

The responding party argued the matter could proceed by application because the material facts were not disputed and delay would result from conversion.

The court held that the allegations involved complex factual disputes, potential expert evidence concerning building systems and structural issues, and credibility assessments inappropriate for determination on an application record.

Considering Rule 38.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the governing jurisprudence, the court found that the interests of justice and procedural fairness required the matter to proceed as an action.

Following a successful appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, the court determined costs for both a preliminary motion and the appeal.

The respondent condominium corporation sought costs after successfully opposing a motion to strike portions of its factum and compendium.

The appellant management company sought substantial costs for the appeal after the court allowed the appeal and found the trial judge’s reasons insufficient.

The court applied Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that the requested appeal costs were slightly disproportionate to the value of the underlying claim.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the respondent for the preliminary motion, and $10,000 all-inclusive costs were awarded to the appellant for the appeal.

The appellant property management company appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing its breach of contract claim arising from the termination of a three‑year property management agreement.

The respondent condominium corporation had terminated the agreement for cause, alleging insubordination, recklessness, or gross negligence.

The appellate court held that the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient because they failed to clearly identify which acts constituted cause for termination or explain why individually insufficient acts collectively justified termination.

The absence of adequate reasoning prevented meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for a new trial before a different deputy judge.

The appellants appealed an interim order that allowed condominium owners with outstanding parking assessments to vote at an upcoming Annual General Meeting.

The motion judge made the order to facilitate the meeting after finding the appellants in breach of a previous production order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the interim order suspended the determination of the underlying liability issue and fell within the motion judge's broad discretion under section 134(3)(c) of the Condominium Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim regarding access to condominium records and ordering him to pay $2,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias or breach of natural justice in the deputy judge's conduct.

However, the court held that the deputy judge erred in penalizing the applicant in costs for conduct outside the proceeding.

The application was allowed in part, and the costs award was reduced to $150 plus $500 in disbursements.

Following the dismissal of defendants’ summary judgment motions and related motions to set aside an Anton Piller order, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The defendants had argued the plaintiff’s action was barred by limitation periods under s. 18(5) of the Radiocommunication Act and the Ontario Limitations Act and sought dismissal on summary judgment.

The court held that the motions were unreasonable given the extensive factual disputes, credibility issues, and evidentiary record requiring trial under the “full appreciation test” articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch.

The defendants also unsuccessfully sought to challenge the Anton Piller order.

Costs were therefore awarded to the plaintiff on a substantial‑indemnity basis.

The defendants brought motions to set aside an Anton Piller order and to exclude evidence obtained under it, and also sought summary judgment dismissing the action on limitation grounds.

The action alleged an unauthorized SMATV scheme distributing encrypted satellite television programming to hundreds of tenants using residential subscriber accounts, contrary to the Radiocommunication Act, contract, and tort principles.

The court held that the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case and that the Anton Piller order was properly granted, finding no failure of full and frank disclosure.

The court also found that complex factual disputes, credibility issues, and allegations of fraudulent concealment prevented determination of limitation defences on summary judgment.

Both the motions to set aside the Anton Piller order and the motions for summary judgment were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court judgment that dismissed her application to vacate a condominium lien for water damage repairs and granted the condominium corporation's application to enforce a single-family use restriction and order the removal of interior door locks.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence that the leak originated in the appellant's unit and that the occupancy and locks violated the condominium's Declaration.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence and upheld the application judge's full indemnity costs award.

The respondent commenced an action alleging the appellants fraudulently obtained and illegally transmitted its satellite programming to apartment tenants.

The appellants moved to stay the action under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, relying on an arbitration clause in the residential subscriber agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's dismissal of the stay, finding the appellants could not invoke the arbitration clause without acknowledging they were parties to it.

The Court also agreed that a partial stay under s. 7(5) was inappropriate as it would cause a multiplicity of proceedings, given that only a few of the 23 defendants were potentially bound by the agreement.