Megan L. Mackey

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of 12 years of condominium board minutes, the examination for discovery of a non-party former director, the return of renovation deposits, and answers to refusals from a co-defendant's examination.

The court dismissed the requests against the condominium, finding the plaintiff had not met the test under Rule 31.10 to examine a non-party and had not established entitlement to further minutes or deposits.

The court partially granted the refusals motion, ordering the co-defendant to answer three specific questions.

The appellant, a developer and unit owner, appealed a lower court decision that upheld certain administrative and amenity fees imposed by the condominium corporation's By-Law No. 7 on unit owners who rent their units short-term.

The appellant argued these fees were ultra vires the Condominium Act, 1998 and the condominium's declaration, and were oppressive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fees were consistent with the declaration's intent for rental governance and were not oppressive, as they offset costs attributable to rental activities and were supported by the historical operation and an overwhelming owner vote.

The respondent condominium corporation sought an order requiring the moving party unit owners to sell their unit or comply with the condominium's rules following a series of disputes between neighbours.

The moving parties moved to stay the application, arguing the dispute must first be mediated and arbitrated pursuant to s. 132(4) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court found that the core of the dispute related to the condominium's declaration, by-laws, and rules, rather than statutory breaches of ss. 117 and 119 that would bypass arbitration.

The court granted the motion and stayed the application pending mediation and arbitration, awarding costs to the moving parties.

The applicant unit owner sought an oppression remedy and $50,000 in damages against the respondent condominium corporation and its volunteer directors, alleging they oppressively delayed replacing his drafty bedroom window for 13 years.

The court dismissed the application, finding the corporation acted reasonably, followed its window replacement policy, and did not breach its duty to repair.

The court also held that suing the directors personally was vexatious, as there were no allegations of bad faith or personal benefit to support personal liability.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an urgent motion seeking 18 forms of relief, primarily an interlocutory injunction to stay the power of sale of her commercial condominium unit by the defendant condominium corporation.

The corporation had registered a lien and initiated power of sale proceedings due to the plaintiff's failure to pay common element fees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction as no permanent injunction was sought in the underlying action.

Furthermore, the court held the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction, and dismissed her claims for Mareva and Mills injunctions, as well as her requests to strike the defendants' pleadings.

The defendant condominium corporation brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' action against it pending mediation and arbitration under the Condominium Act, 1998 and the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The plaintiffs opposed the stay, arguing that the claims against the condominium corporation were intertwined with the claims against the developer and that bifurcating the proceedings would cause duplication and inconsistent verdicts.

The court found that while bifurcation was unreasonable and risked multiplicity, recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence mandated a stay under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, as no statutory exceptions applied.

The motion to stay was granted.

The moving party, a condominium unit owner, brought a pre-emptive motion under Rule 25.11 to strike the condominium corporation's Notice of Application and the supporting affidavit.

The underlying application sought to amend the condominium declaration to correct an allegedly inequitable allocation of common expenses.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the Notice of Application, finding it pleaded a reasonable issue.

The court partially granted the motion to strike the affidavit, expunging specific paragraphs containing inadmissible hearsay and scandalous statements, but left the majority of the evidentiary objections for the application judge to determine on a full record.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' motion and the granting of the respondent's motion to prohibit further motions, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs.

The applicants opposed, arguing the respondent's costs were covered by insurance and that the court lacked jurisdiction over their motion.

The court rejected the applicants' arguments, finding no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The court awarded costs to the respondent but declined to make the applicants jointly and severally liable, instead ordering each to pay half the total amount.

The applicant sought to set aside part of an arbitration award concerning a parking unit owner's access to condominium common elements.

The court held that, although the access dispute was properly before the arbitrator, the arbitrator went beyond contractual interpretation and effectively corrected or amended errors and inconsistencies in the declaration.

Because amendments or corrections to a condominium declaration fall within the Superior Court's jurisdiction under s. 109 of the Condominium Act, the arbitrator decided a matter outside the scope of the arbitration agreement for the purposes of s. 46(1)3 of the Arbitration Act.

The access-related portion of the award was set aside and costs were awarded to the applicant.

Following an application to strike down certain condominium by-laws, the parties agreed that the successful party should be awarded $25,000 in costs.

Both parties claimed to be the successful party.

The court determined that the respondent was the successful party, as most of the impugned by-laws were upheld, and awarded the respondent $25,000 in costs.

The applicant, a unit owner, challenged several provisions of the respondent condominium corporation's By-law No. 7 concerning rental activities, arguing they were ultra vires or unreasonable.

The court found that the condominium had the power to oversee rental activities, charge rental management and amenity fees, collect damage deposits, and limit tenant occupancy.

However, the court struck down restrictions on advertising and requiring owners to use only Board-approved rental managers as unreasonable infringements on property rights.

The applicant brought motions to convert a condominium application and counter-application into an action, consolidate them with an ongoing defamation action, permit the use of discovery evidence across proceedings, and strike a defamation pleading in the counter-application.

The court found the matters were deeply interwoven, involving the same factual matrix regarding the applicant's conduct and social media posts about the condominium board.

To avoid inconsistent findings and multiplicity of proceedings, the court ordered the conversion and consolidation.

The court also granted leave to use discovery evidence and struck the defamation pleading with leave to amend for failing to provide adequate particulars.

The appellants appealed a decision finding them liable for $10,022.33 in damages arising from a water leak in their unoccupied condominium unit.

The condominium corporation charged back the repair costs, which were less than its insurance deductible, pursuant to s. 105 of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 105 does not require a finding of negligence or strict liability, but rather a simple 'but for' causation analysis.

The court found that the appellants' failure to shut off the water during their five-month absence was an omission that caused the damage.

The plaintiff developer sued the condominium corporation and its individual directors for oppression and intentional interference with contractual relations, alleging they exaggerated construction deficiencies and implemented restrictive rules.

The defendants moved to strike the claims against the individual directors.

The court granted the motion, finding the claims were undifferentiated and lacked the necessary material facts to support personal liability against the directors.

The claims were struck without leave to amend.

The respondents brought a motion to stay the applicant condominium corporation's application to enforce a settlement agreement regarding shared amenities.

The respondents argued the dispute was subject to mandatory mediation and arbitration under section 132 of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the parties' Reciprocal Agreement.

The court applied the Haas framework and found that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

The motion was granted and the application was stayed in favour of mediation and/or arbitration.

The applicant condominium owners sought a declaration that the respondent condominium corporation had no lawful right to charge back the cost of repairs resulting from a water leak in their unit.

The leak occurred from a toilet while the owners were away for five months.

The court found that the owners committed an omission by failing to properly maintain the toilet and retain a plumber after a previous malfunction, and by failing to shut off the water during their prolonged absence.

The application was dismissed, and the owners were held liable for the repair costs up to the insurance deductible.

The appellant, a ranking creditor, appealed a motion judge's decision that residential condominium purchasers were not obliged to pay the Receiver their proportionate share of the notional value of land conveyed to the City of Toronto to meet the developer's parkland obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the standard form Tarion Addendum clause, finding that the term 'parks levy' in the agreement indicated a payment of cash-in-lieu rather than a conveyance of land.

The appeal was dismissed.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule the hearing of an appeal from a decision of the Condominium Authority of Ontario.

The court directed that the appeal proceed before a three-judge panel via ZOOM videoconference and provided procedural directions for the electronic filing of appeal materials, factums, and costs submissions.

Joan Marilyn MacDonald sought an oppression remedy under the Condominium Act, challenging a special assessment levied by Wentworth Condominium Corporation No. 96 (WCC96) for building repairs and the subsequent lien registered against her unit.

WCC96 sought summary judgment to enforce the lien.

The court dismissed MacDonald's application, finding that the Board acted within its authority and that the special assessment for remedial work did not require a unit owner vote under the Act or bylaws.

Summary judgment was granted to WCC96, allowing enforcement of the lien and sale of the unit, though with a 30-day grace period for MacDonald to remedy the default.

The applicants sought declarations that short-term leasing was permitted in their condominium corporation (TSCC 2492), an injunction against the corporation preventing such leasing, and an oppression remedy with damages and costs, arguing that TSCC 2492's rule prohibiting leases under six months contradicted its declaration.

The respondent sought dismissal of the application.

The court applied the business judgment rule, finding that the board acted diligently and in good faith, adopting a reasonable interpretation of its declaration and rules.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that the board's rule was not inconsistent with the declaration and that the applicants failed to establish a breach of reasonable expectations or oppressive conduct.