Megan Molloy

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 applicants, owners of medical clinic units in a commercial condominium, sought the appointment of an administrator for the respondent condominium corporation due to alleged mismanagement, poor financial practices, and failure to comply with the Condominium Act.

The court had previously declined to appoint an administrator, giving the board time to address the issues.

Upon return, the court found insufficient progress, ongoing governance failures, and a lack of urgency in addressing repairs, cleanliness, and fairness among unit owners.

The court appointed an administrator, finding it just, convenient, and in the best interests of the unit owners.

The applicant, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 304, brought an unopposed application under section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998, seeking to enforce the Act and its Declaration against the respondents, owners and occupant of a condominium unit.

The application arose from the respondents’ repeated refusal to allow access to their unit to investigate and repair a water leak affecting the unit below, as well as ongoing harassing and disruptive conduct by the occupant, Rick Goncza.

The court found the evidence uncontradicted, held that the respondents breached their obligations under the Act and Declaration, and granted the orders sought, including access for repairs and a cease and desist order against Rick Goncza.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant, jointly and severally against all respondents.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from an application by Peel Condominium Corporation No. 170 to enforce an arbitration award against Bonita Lynne Mittel.

The initial application was granted on February 8, 2024.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs of $17,992.76, arguing that condominium litigation warrants higher cost awards under Section 134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Respondent opposed, citing inability to pay and claiming she did not oppose the enforcement application.

The court found that the Respondent did oppose the application and caused delays, and that her financial circumstances did not justify deviating from the statutory policy of shifting costs to the unit owner.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the Applicant, emphasizing the unique nature of costs in condominium disputes.

The applicants, owners of medical clinic units in a commercial condominium, brought a motion to appoint an administrator under s. 131 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

They alleged severe mismanagement by the condominium board, including failure to hold meetings, underfunding the reserve fund, and neglecting repairs.

The court found substantial evidence of mismanagement and non-compliance with the Act.

However, noting the recent hiring of an experienced property manager, a new budget, and a special assessment to address repairs, the court dismissed the motion to avoid the significant costs of an administrator, allowing the board a chance to improve governance.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the applicants returning to court if sufficient progress is not made by January 1, 2025.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce an arbitration award against the self-represented respondent.

The respondent requested an adjournment to obtain counsel, which the court denied due to significant prior delays and the straightforward nature of the enforcement application.

Finding no pending appeal and that the appeal period had expired, the court ordered the enforcement of the arbitration award pursuant to section 50 of the Arbitration Act.

This appeal concerned a dispute between a condominium corporation and unit owners regarding persistent non-compliance with fire safety rules, which led to a lower court order granting the corporation a writ of possession and the right to sell the unit.

The appellants (unit owners) appealed, arguing the motion judge erred by not applying the oppression test under the Condominium Act, failing to consider the corporation's enforcement obligations, and making errors in factual findings regarding their compliance efforts and exceptional circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the oppression arguments were new issues not raised in the lower court and that the motion judge's factual findings, which were entitled to deference, supported her conclusion that the appellants failed to comply with clear court orders.

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, York Condominium Corporation No. 221, brought an application against unit owners Julian and Christine Mazur to compel compliance with a Toronto Fire Department inspection order regarding combustible materials, restrain dumping garbage in common elements, and for full indemnity legal costs.

The unit was deemed a fire hazard.

The respondents sought an adjournment, which was denied, and consented to the substantive compliance orders but resisted the costs claim.

The court found the unit's condition a serious hazard, noting the Corporation's obligation to ensure compliance.

The court granted the compliance orders and awarded the Condominium Corporation full indemnity costs.

The applicant condominium corporation requested to schedule a short application for an oppression remedy because a unit owner refused to move a vehicle to allow for maintenance.

The court declined to schedule the hearing, noting that condominium compliance disputes must generally proceed to mediation and arbitration before court.

The court convened a case conference to determine whether the matter was properly before the court or should be diverted to alternative dispute resolution.

The plaintiff sought leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property based on an alleged joint venture agreement.

The defendants opposed, claiming the agreement was fabricated and signatures were forged, and brought a cross-motion to discharge a caution the plaintiff had registered on title.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the land and that the equities, including the uniqueness of the property, favoured granting the CPL.

However, the court granted the cross-motion to discharge the caution because it had been registered indefinitely in violation of the Land Titles Act requirements.

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.

The defendant moved to set aside a noting in default and default judgment, as well as an order for a writ of possession and a certificate of lien related to unpaid common expenses.

The court found that the defendant failed to prove she did not receive notice of the claim, delayed significantly in bringing the motion, and presented no arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was dismissed, but the plaintiff agreed to a 90-day stay on eviction.

The respondent was entirely successful in having the applicant's application dismissed and sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent relied on its status as a non-profit condominium corporation and the explicit terms of its declaration and by-laws, which provided for full indemnity costs.

The court found no reason to ignore the governing documentation and awarded the respondent its requested costs of $164,443.16 on a full indemnity basis.

A condominium corporation passed a by-law to lease four common element parking spaces to each unit owner to address a parking dispute caused by a popular restaurant tenant monopolizing shared parking.

The appellant unit owner, who leased her units to the restaurant, challenged the by-law as invalid, unreasonable, and oppressive.

The application judge dismissed the application.

On appeal, the majority upheld the application judge's decision, finding the by-law valid and reasonable.

However, Justice Weiler dissented, holding the by-law invalid because it effectively created permanent exclusive use common elements without amending the declaration, and unreasonable because there was no evidence supporting an increase from two to four parking spaces per unit and no practical alternative parking existed.

The applicant, Keele Medical Properties Ltd., sought a declaration that it was exempt from a special assessment levied by the respondent, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1786, and that the resulting condominium lien was invalid.

The applicant argued inadequate disclosure in status certificates and that the lien was statute-barred.

The court found that the status certificates provided adequate disclosure of the respondent's financial difficulties and potential for a special assessment.

It also determined that the commercial units owned by the applicant were never properly levied under a prior, invalid special assessment, thus the current lien was not statute-barred.

The application was dismissed, and the special assessment and lien were declared valid and enforceable.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, challenged the validity of a by-law passed by the respondent condominium corporation that leased common element parking spaces to unit holders.

The applicant argued the by-law was ultra vires, discriminatory, unreasonable, and oppressive, as it restricted her tenant's (a popular restaurant) access to parking.

The court found the by-law valid under the Condominium Act, not discriminatory, and that the Board's actions were not oppressive, as they were a reasonable response to a parking monopolization issue caused by the applicant's tenant.

The application was dismissed.