Thomas W. Arndt

Supplementary reasons addressing implementation and costs following an appeal decision regarding a condominium dispute.

The court ordered a trial of an issue to determine the difference in value between a two-storey and three-storey townhouse unit.

The court denied prejudgment interest on the valuation amount, finding the loss crystallized on the date of the appeal decision.

The court also allocated trial and appeal costs among the parties, applying modified Sanderson orders to account for successful and unsuccessful claims against various defendants.

The appellant purchased a condominium townhouse advertised as three storeys, but later discovered the third floor was illegally built into the common element attic space.

She sued the condominium corporation, the property manager, her real estate lawyers, and the vendor.

The Court of Appeal held that the condominium corporation was liable for negligent misstatement for issuing a clean estoppel certificate despite the illegal third floor.

The court upheld the finding of solicitor negligence against the appellant's real estate lawyers for failing to review the vertical survey plans.

Damages were reassessed to compensate the appellant for the lost opportunity of owning a three-storey unit, and punitive damages against the vendor were upheld.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction preventing a neighbouring condominium developer from installing translucent panels on the west wall of a nearly completed building.

The applicant alleged the design breached a negative covenant allegedly agreed upon during planning approval discussions that the wall would contain no windows.

Applying the test from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), the court held the applicant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried and provided no evidence of irreparable harm, particularly in the absence of expert evidence regarding impacts on future redevelopment or privacy.

The court also found the balance of convenience strongly favoured the developer because construction was substantially complete and the applicant had delayed unreasonably in bringing the motion.

The delay and resulting prejudice supported the equitable defence of laches.