5 total
Condominium corporation and neighbours acted oppressively by failing to adhere to and enforce development approval processes.
The appellant, a unit owner in a vacant land condominium, appealed an application judge's decision regarding her claims against neighbouring unit owners and the condominium corporation.
The neighbours had breached the condominium declaration by altering grading and removing vegetation without approval, and the corporation had failed to promptly enforce a halt work order.
The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred by failing to adjudicate the appellant's oppression claims under s. 135 of the Condominium Act.
The Court held that the conduct of both the neighbours and the corporation was oppressive and unfairly disregarded the appellant's interests.
The Court granted declarations of oppression and ordered the corporation to have proper regard for the appellant's interests in future approvals, but declined to order the neighbours to remediate the grading.
The Court also found the application judge erred by determining costs without allowing the parties to make submissions, and directed the parties to provide written costs submissions to the Court of Appeal.
Liability cap enforced for one appellant; co-appellant's appeal dismissed.
Two defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding substantial damages for breach of fuel-delivery contracts and for inducing breach.
The court upheld findings that Remote breached contract and good faith duties, that Wasaya induced the breach, and that mitigation findings were available on the record.
However, it held the trial judge erred by not applying the contractual limitation clause, reducing Remote’s liability to $50,000 while leaving Wasaya liable for $856,458.
Tax Motion granted
The applicant First Nation sought an interpleader order to pay a construction holdback fund into court due to multiple adverse claims from subcontractors, a garnishee, and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).
The court granted the interpleader, finding that the fund was neither the property of the general contractor (Razar) nor a debt payable to Razar, based on the contract terms and the Construction Act's trust provisions.
Consequently, the priority claims of the garnishee and CRA were dismissed as premature, as their claims depended on the fund being the general contractor's property.
The court reduced a construction lien's quantum but refused to discharge it for willful exaggeration.
Eco Depot Ltd. brought a motion under the Construction Act to discharge a construction lien registered by RJ Concrete & Construction Ltd., arguing willful exaggeration and abuse of process, or alternatively, a reduction in the lien amount.
Eco Depot also sought an extension to file a statement of defence.
The court found that the lien was not willfully exaggerated or an abuse of process, as the calculation was based on the agreed contract price for completed work, not actual costs.
However, the court agreed the lien amount was too high and ordered it reduced from $70,282.42 to $47,230.42.
The court also granted Eco Depot an extension to file its statement of defence.
Substantial indemnity costs of $6,000 awarded against plaintiffs for improperly attempting to withdraw a jury notice.
The defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully moving to strike the plaintiffs' 'Notice of Withdrawal of Jury Notice' and after the plaintiffs abandoned their cross-motion to strike the jury notice.
The court found the plaintiffs' conduct in creating a non-existent form and ignoring the Rules of Civil Procedure warranted the court's disapproval.
The court awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs fixed at $6,000.
