Megan L. Mackey

The applicant developer sought oppression relief under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998 to compel a condominium corporation to sign a resort access licence agreement for shared amenities in a resort-style development.

The court held that the applicant was a successor declarant with standing and that the condominium corporation remained obliged under its declaration to enter into a licence agreement, notwithstanding its attempted declaration amendment and arguments based on s. 112.

However, the court found that the refusal to sign the specific agreement tendered was not oppressive because the proposed terms left fees, rules, closures, and future charges substantially within the developer's unilateral control.

The proper course, if terms cannot be agreed, is mediation and arbitration under s. 132.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant purchased commercial condominium units and subsequently acquired a communication unit without conducting due diligence, such as obtaining a status certificate or performing a title search.

The communication unit was subject to a registered lien for unpaid common expenses.

The applicant sought an oppression remedy, alleging the condominium corporation misled it into purchasing the unit and seeking an order compelling the corporation to take back title without the applicant paying the lien.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant was responsible for its failure to verify title and that the corporation was entitled to enforce its lien before accepting a transfer of the unit.

The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's order dismissing their motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the respondents' matrimonial home.

The appellants alleged the transfer of the home from the respondent husband to his wife was a fraudulent conveyance to defeat creditors in an underlying action regarding a condominium development.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Associate Judge correctly applied the Grefford test, properly excluded an affidavit from a separate proceeding, and reasonably concluded the appellants failed to establish a high probability of success in the main action or that the balance of convenience favoured a CPL.

The applicant condominium corporation sought leave to appeal an arbitral award that ordered it to pay liquidated damages to its former management company after terminating their contract.

The condominium had terminated the contract pursuant to s. 111 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The arbitrator found that the liquidated damages clause survived the statutory termination.

The Superior Court of Justice granted leave to appeal and set aside the award, holding that the statutory right to terminate under s. 111 is unconditional and terminates all aspects of the contract, including the liquidated damages clause, in accordance with the consumer protection purpose of the Act.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a matrimonial home allegedly transferred by one defendant to his spouse in a fraudulent conveyance scheme.

The plaintiffs' claims as creditors were based solely on damages sought in a separate underlying action against the defendant and others.

The court applied the three-part test from Grefford v. Fielding and dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a high probability of success in the underlying action and that the balance of convenience favoured denying the CPL, particularly given that the current property owner was a stranger to the underlying dispute.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following an order requiring Christine Antunes to vacate a condominium unit owned by Coralia Maria Antunes, after finding their conduct contrary to the Condominium Act and the condominium's rules.

The court considers the applicant's request for full indemnity costs, the respondents' financial circumstances, and the policy rationale against routinely granting full indemnity in condominium disputes.

Ultimately, the court awards $7,500 in costs to the applicant, to be added to the unit's common expenses, finding this amount fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The court granted an application by Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 534 for an order requiring Christine Antunes to permanently vacate her condominium unit due to ongoing disruptive behaviour, including excessive noise and harassment of residents and staff, in breach of a prior Tribunal order and the Condominium Act.

The court found that both Christine and her mother, Coralia Maria Antunes (the unit owner), had breached their obligations under the Act and the condominium’s declaration and rules.

The court rejected the respondents’ arguments regarding disability accommodation, finding no evidence of a causal link between Christine’s addiction and her conduct, and held that, in any event, the duty to accommodate had been satisfied.

Christine was ordered to vacate the unit within 120 days.

The applicant, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2707, applied to enforce an arbitration award and subsequent cost order against the respondents under section 50 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The underlying dispute concerned arrears in contributions for shared facilities at a residential condominium.

The respondents did not appeal or challenge the arbitral awards, and the court found that none of the statutory exceptions to enforcement under subsection 50(3) were present.

Consequently, the court granted the application to enforce the awards and ordered the respondents to pay partial indemnity costs of $11,986.51.

The court found that York Region Condominium Corporation No. 664 had oppressed unit owner Joshua Frankel by breaching a settlement agreement to resolve a persistent noise issue in his unit.

The court held that the condominium’s failure to install the agreed-upon pumps, instead opting for a cheaper alternative that did not resolve the problem, constituted unfair disregard of Frankel’s interests under section 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court ordered the condominium to take all necessary measures to attenuate the noise and awarded Frankel $32,500 in compensation for the oppression, as well as $30,000 in costs.

The applicant, Maria Ramos, sought a declaration regarding the improper conduct of the 2021 Annual General Meeting (AGM) election of York Condominium Corporation No. 25 and an order for the corporation to pay the court-appointed inspector's fees.

The inspector, Eagle Audit, also moved for approval of its reports and payment of its fees.

The court found that the condominium's building manager had mishandled the 2021 election, making the results unreliable.

While declining to issue a declaration invalidating the 2021 AGM due to lack of practical utility, the court approved Eagle Audit's reports and ordered York Condominium Corporation No. 25 to pay Eagle Audit's full invoiced fees of $192,308.79, as well as Maria Ramos's costs on a substantial indemnity scale in the amount of $75,000 and Eagle Audit's costs of $37,151.82.

The court emphasized the importance of election integrity in condominium governance and found the corporation's resistance to the investigation and payment of fees unjustified.

The applicants sought an oppression remedy against the condominium corporation regarding alleged inaccurate status certificate disclosures about balcony repairs and a solarium, and subsequent oppressive conduct.

The court found the original status certificate accurate regarding balcony assessments and solarium status.

However, it found the corporation engaged in oppressive conduct by deliberately altering and falsifying a status certificate provided to the applicants post-purchase and then lying about its authenticity.

The applicants were awarded $75,000 in damages and exempted from solarium demolition costs, but remained responsible for balcony special assessments.

The applicants sought damages for water infiltration in their condominium unit against the vendor and the condominium corporation.

They alleged the vendor knew of the leakage prior to closing and the corporation delayed necessary repairs.

The vendor brought a counter-application for the release of a $75,000 holdback.

The court found that the vendor acted reasonably and responsibly upon discovering new leakage just before closing, and that the condominium corporation also acted reasonably and expeditiously within the constraints of the Tarion New Home Warranty Program, as the water infiltration was a complex, sitewide issue.

The applicants failed to provide sufficient evidentiary basis for their claimed damages and procedurally altered their requested relief at the hearing.

The application was dismissed, and the $75,000 holdback was ordered to be returned to the vendor.

The moving party condominium corporation brought a motion to quash the respondent's appeal and application for judicial review of a Condominium Authority Tribunal decision.

The respondent had previously failed to file materials, failed to comply with conditions of an adjournment including paying costs awards, and failed to confirm he authorized the proceedings.

The Divisional Court found the proceedings were filed solely to delay the implementation of the Tribunal's decision and were manifestly devoid of merit.

The motion was granted and the appeal and application for judicial review were quashed.

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of his judicial review and appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment to February 28, 2024, on peremptory terms.

The applicant was ordered to pay $500 in costs thrown away and to pay $5,000 into court pending further order.

Failure to make these payments would allow the respondent to move to quash the proceedings.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The parties subsequently resolved the issues in dispute and the applicant requested to withdraw the case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 43.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application regarding complaints of significant disruption and unreasonable noise caused by a resident.

The parties agreed to settle the matter via a consent order.

The tribunal ordered the resident to cease making unreasonable noise or causing disturbances on the property, and established a communication protocol for future incidents.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal but failed to participate in the Stage 3 hearing.

Despite multiple reminders and a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant did not submit any evidence or submissions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the case and ordered it dismissed under Rule 43.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal but failed to participate in the Stage 3 hearing.

Despite multiple reminders and a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant did not submit any evidence or submissions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the case and ordered it dismissed under Rule 43.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant brought an application before the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered that the application be dismissed without costs and without prejudice to the applicant's right to pursue the matter through mediation or arbitration.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order directing the respondent unit owner to comply with noise rules.

The corporation alleged the respondent deliberately created loud banging sounds on plumbing pipes, disturbing other residents.

The respondent failed to participate in the hearing after multiple adjournment requests were denied.

Relying on resident testimony and an independent acoustic engineering report, the Tribunal found the respondent breached the condominium's declaration and rules, as well as s. 117(2)(a) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent was ordered to cease creating the noise and to pay $5,150 in costs.