Megan Molloy

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.