Luis Hernandez

The applicants, unit owners in the respondent condominium corporation, brought an application for an oppression remedy, alleging that the corporation's representatives engaged in coercive and abusive behaviour regarding noise complaints, repair issues, balcony storage, and the rejection of a board nomination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the conduct of both parties was less than ideal, the respondent's actions did not meet the legal test for oppression and were a valid exercise of balancing communal interests with private rights.

Following a successful application to terminate a tenancy and evict the respondents for unpaid rent, the applicants sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The respondents failed to deliver costs submissions.

The court found that the respondents' conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous behaviour required for an elevated costs award.

Costs were awarded to the applicants on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $9,000.

The applicant landlords sought an order terminating the respondents' tenancy, evicting them, and awarding $47,300 in unpaid rent.

Because the rent arrears exceeded the Landlord and Tenant Board's monetary jurisdiction, the landlords brought the application in the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to section 207(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The tenants requested an adjournment and argued the application should be dismissed under section 83(3) of the Act, alleging outstanding repairs and retaliatory motives.

The court denied the adjournment and granted the application, finding no evidence to support the tenants' allegations and noting their repeated failure to pay rent or provide evidence of payment.