Megan Mackey

The applicant, owner of a penthouse unit that is twice the size of other units in the building, sought an oppression remedy under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant objected to an amendment to the condominium declaration that changed the cost-sharing of common expenses from an equal share per unit to a share based on unit size.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision to amend the declaration to ensure equitable contribution to common expenses and adequately fund the reserve fund was reasonable and not oppressive.

The applicant's claim for damages was also dismissed.

The applicants sought an order to amend a condominium's declaration and description to correct a defective title issue caused by previous inadequate legal work.

The court found that the amendment was necessary to correct an inconsistency and to carry out the intent of the declaration, which anticipated future development.

The court granted the order under s. 109(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and also deemed service of the application effective.

The plaintiff hotel owner sued the defendant condominium corporation for historical overpayments of shared electricity costs spanning 2006 to 2015.

The overpayments resulted from a conversion error in an Excel spreadsheet used to calculate the plaintiff's share.

The court found the defendant was unjustly enriched and ordered repayment of $730,058.99.

The court rejected the defendant's limitation period defence, finding the error was not reasonably discoverable until a consultant identified it in 2017.

The court also dismissed the defendant's claim for equitable set-off regarding alleged underpayments in other areas.

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 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.

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 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 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.

Following the dismissal of a motion to set aside the appointment of an administrator for a condominium corporation, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The applicant was awarded full indemnity costs of $36,226.82 payable by the condominium corporation, as the moving parties had made unfounded allegations but were acting in what they believed to be the interests of all unit owners.

The moving parties were also awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000 payable by the condominium corporation, as they achieved partial success and brought forward issues of interest to all unit owners.

Following a decision with divided success, the applicant sought costs based on three unaccepted offers to settle.

The respondent argued the claimed amount was excessive and noted duplication of effort due to a change of solicitors.

The court agreed with the respondent's submissions on quantum but applied Rule 49.10, awarding the applicant partial indemnity costs up to the date of its final offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing total costs at $13,501.01.

The applicant condominium corporations brought an application to regulate requisitioned owners' meetings called to vote on the removal of the current boards of directors.

The applicants sought to prohibit the use of proxies and limit communications among owners, alleging the respondent circulated misleading information regarding a special assessment.

The court dismissed the requests to prohibit proxies and limit communications, finding such orders inconsistent with the democratic governance model under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court ordered the meetings to proceed with an independent chair and awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The applicant developer sought reimbursement of $79,560 in HST from the respondent condominium corporation for four units the corporation was required to purchase.

The corporation brought a cross-application arguing the disclosure statement was misleading and sought damages for oppression due to the developer's conduct during refinancing.

The court found the disclosure statement's reference to 'plus all applicable taxes' was sufficient and ordered the corporation to pay the HST.

However, the court also found the developer's conduct during refinancing warranted sanction and ordered it to pay the corporation's additional legal costs of $20,597.90 as a set-off.

Two condominium corporations brought applications to amend their declarations to remove provisions that expressly permitted short-term transient rentals.

The corporations argued the provisions were inconsistent with the Condominium Act, 1998, the applicable zoning by-law, and a restrictive covenant on title.

The court dismissed the applications, finding no inconsistency.

The declarations did not impermissibly grant rights but rather defined the scope of use restrictions, and the inability of the boards to make rules restricting short-term leasing was mandated by the Act's requirement that rules be consistent with the declaration.

The court held that any desired changes to the declarations should be pursued through the owner approval process under section 107 of the Act, rather than by alleging an inconsistency under section 109.

The applicant condominium corporation sought costs against a commercial tenant and landlord following a consent compliance order regarding severe noise issues from a restaurant.

The court held that the consent order did not preclude the applicant from seeking its additional actual costs under s. 134(5) of the Condominium Act.

Finding that the landlord and tenant breached the declaration and rules, the court awarded the applicant $87,810.09 in costs, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable.