Matthew Christopher MacKenzie Morden

The applicants sought the appointment of an administrator and inspector to oversee a condominium corporation, alleging oppressive conduct by board members regarding the administration of allocated cost contribution fees.

The court denied both requests, finding that the board's inability to meet was caused by the applicants' own bad faith conduct in refusing to attend meetings.

The court found no substantial misconduct or mismanagement warranting the appointment of an administrator as a last resort.

The applicants' concerns about fee administration were found to be reasonable but did not meet the threshold for intervention.

The appellant, Natalie Mouralian, brought a motion for a stay of the Court of Appeal's decision pending her application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The underlying dispute involved a failed real estate transaction and the forfeiture of a $70,000 deposit, with the Superior Court and Court of Appeal having previously denied relief from forfeiture.

The motions judge denied the stay, finding that the issues raised by the appellant were factual, not legal, and therefore unlikely to meet the Supreme Court's stringent leave criteria for public or national importance.

The judge also noted the respondent's counsel's improper release of the deposit funds despite notice of intent to seek leave, though this did not affect the merits of the stay motion.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal determined that the offer to settle did not automatically trigger costs consequences or justify an extraordinary award of substantial indemnity costs, maintaining its original order for partial indemnity costs.

This appeal concerned a failed real estate transaction where the appellant sought the return of a $70,000 deposit after failing to close due to financing issues, despite the respondent subsequently selling the property at a profit.

The appellant argued that retaining the deposit was unconscionable, citing the respondent's lack of loss and the appellant's alleged lack of capacity due to mental health struggles and bereavement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that it was not unconscionable for the respondent to retain the deposit, as there was no inequality of bargaining power or improvident bargain, and the appellant had intended to close the transaction.

The appellant, Nathalie Mouralian, brought a motion before the Court of Appeal for the appointment of a "litigation guardian counsel" to assist with her appeal, citing serious mental health challenges and a brain injury.

The motion was dismissed for two reasons: first, the court lacked authority to appoint a "litigation guardian counsel" as the appellant required counsel, not merely a guardian; and second, the medical evidence provided did not establish mental incapacity as required by Rule 7.04(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and sections 6 or 45 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

This appeal concerned a post-closing dispute over HST liability following the sale of a mixed-use property.

The purchasers' counterclaim, alleging HST liability, was dismissed at trial on the basis that they suffered no loss and arguably benefited from a windfall.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the purchasers suffered no loss, which justified the dismissal of the counterclaim.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and it was deemed unnecessary to address other legal arguments regarding the Excise Tax Act or post-closing readjustment.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs for an application and compensation for her time as a self-represented litigant on a fresh evidence motion.

The court found divided success on the application, entitling the applicant to some costs, but significantly reduced the quantum due to disproportionality and the respondent's reasonable expectations.

For the fresh evidence motion, no costs were awarded to the self-represented applicant due to a lack of evidence demonstrating lost remunerative opportunity, a requirement for lay litigant compensation.

The applicant sought declaratory relief and damages against the condominium corporation for failure to repair common elements (basement and roof water penetration) and for alleged misrepresentation in the Status Certificate regarding a special assessment.

The court found the condominium corporation breached its duty to repair common elements in a reasonable and timely manner, awarding the applicant lost rental income and specific out-of-pocket expenses.

However, the court dismissed claims for oppression, aggravated damages, and relief from the special assessment, finding no misrepresentation in the Status Certificate.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs, asserting the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario.

The court found that the plaintiff was indeed ordinarily resident outside Ontario based on his significant time spent in Mexico.

However, the motion was dismissed because the plaintiff successfully demonstrated a good chance of success on the merits of his claim for wrongful dismissal or dependent contractor damages, and the court concluded that the justice of the case did not require an order for security for costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs following its substantial success on a motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The defendants argued the plaintiff achieved only limited success and that the motion could have been avoided if the plaintiff's initial notice of motion had been narrower.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful on the core issue of the confidentiality of the Diagnosis Database, which was the focus of the motion.

While acknowledging some unnecessary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs, reduced from the amount sought, taking into account the factors under Rule 57.01(1).

Following competing applications under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998 regarding the validity of a requisition seeking removal of condominium board members, the court had previously declared the requisition invalid, granted injunctive relief restraining meetings and dissemination of related allegations, and dismissed the owners’ application.

The condominium corporation sought substantial indemnity costs of $41,000.

The court held the applications were properly brought under s. 134 and that mandatory mediation and arbitration under s. 132 did not apply.

Although the owners had made false and misleading representations, the conduct was not sufficiently reprehensible to justify substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis and fixed at $18,000 as a fair and reasonable amount.

The applicant sought enforcement of an alleged settlement agreement arising from a commercial dispute between advertising companies.

The respondent argued that no binding settlement existed because minutes of settlement were never executed and it had only agreed to certain terms of the proposal.

The court held that a binding settlement arises where parties agree on essential terms and demonstrate mutual intention to create legal relations, even if final documentation has not been signed.

The exchange of communications between counsel constituted a clear offer and acceptance of settlement terms.

The application was granted and the respondent was ordered to execute the agreed Minutes of Settlement and Release.

A condominium corporation sought declarations and injunctive relief after unit owners circulated a requisition calling for a special meeting to remove three board members.

The court found that the requisition and accompanying letter contained numerous false and misleading statements regarding financial matters, reserve fund expenditures, and the legality of security system upgrades.

Applying principles analogous to corporate shareholder meetings, the court held that a requisition must not mislead owners and must allow them to form a reasoned judgment about whether a meeting should occur.

Because the requisition was based on misleading information intended to induce signatures, it was declared invalid.

The court granted permanent and interim injunctions restraining further dissemination of the statements and temporarily prohibiting the owners from canvassing or soliciting regarding condominium elections or meetings.