Rachel Fielding

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion for compliance and contempt against a unit occupant and his parents (the unit owners) for a persistent campaign of harassing, defamatory, and discriminatory communications directed at the board, property manager, and other residents.

The court found the occupant violated s. 117 of the Condominium Act and ordered him prohibited from the property and from communicating with the corporation's representatives.

The court also found the parents failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the misconduct under s. 119(2) and ordered them jointly and severally liable for damages and costs on a full indemnity basis, collectible as a common expense.

The moving parties sought an adjournment of four related applications and two summary judgment motions due to the late filing of a responding record containing an expert report.

The responding party did not oppose the adjournment but argued the expert report should not have been a surprise.

The court granted the adjournment, extended the deadline to set three of the related cases down for trial, and reserved the costs of the appearance to the hearing on the merits.

The moving party sought to quash an appeal from a motion judge's order refusing to stay a court proceeding in favour of arbitration.

The moving party argued that section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act barred the appeal, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Wellman to argue that the Huras line of cases should be overruled.

The Court of Appeal held that Wellman did not overrule Huras, affirmed that Huras was correctly decided, and found that because the motion judge had no statutory authority under section 7(5) to refuse to stay the arbitrable claims, his decision was not made under section 7.

Therefore, section 7(6) did not bar the appeal.

The motion to quash was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, who reside in South Korea.

The plaintiffs commenced an action seeking repayment of loans and a share of the equity from the sale of a property.

The court found that the defendants met their initial onus as the plaintiffs reside outside Ontario.

However, the plaintiffs successfully rebutted the onus by demonstrating that they are impecunious and that their claim is not devoid of merit.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed.