Michael A. Spears

The applicant condominium corporation sought compliance orders against a unit owner for unauthorized video surveillance in the mailroom and abusive communications directed at staff and board members.

The respondent admitted to the actions but argued they were provoked by election interference (vandalism of campaign posters) and a prolonged lack of hot water in her unit, which impacted her and her spouse's health due to pre-existing medical conditions.

The court found the respondent's conduct contravened the Condominium Act but acknowledged the significant provocation.

While granting the compliance orders, the court denied the applicant's request for full indemnity costs, citing shared responsibility and the more serious nature of the wrongs committed against the respondent.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the application judge dismissing her claim for orders to change the respondent condominium corporation's budget and repair schedule, remove the individual respondent from the board, and obtain ancillary relief.

The appellant sought to introduce new evidence post-hearing to demonstrate that the corporation's assets were in danger and that the board was mismanaging the corporation.

The Court of Appeal declined to retry the application on a new evidentiary record, finding it was not the function of the appellate court and would be fundamentally unfair to the respondents.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

This is a costs endorsement following an unsuccessful application by Catharine Patricia Patterson.

The successful respondent, York Condominium Corporation No. 70, sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing for deterrence against unmeritorious lawsuits.

The unsuccessful applicant requested partial indemnity costs in her favour, despite losing the application.

The court, applying Rules 49 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, found the applicant's submissions unacceptable and the respondent's request for substantial indemnity costs unwarranted.

While agreeing the application lacked merit, the court did not find the threshold for substantial indemnity met.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs of $14,646, to be paid by the applicant.

The applicant sought declarations and orders against the condominium corporation and a board member for alleged failures to fulfill obligations under the Condominium Act, including inadequate funding of reserve accounts, failure to increase common expenses, and neglect of necessary repairs.

The respondents argued that the issues were being addressed by a new management company and that the business judgment rule applied.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the board had acted unfairly or unreasonably, or that court intervention was required.

Two condominium corporations brought a motion to stay an action commenced by another condominium corporation concerning disputes under a shared facilities agreement governing a multi-building condominium development.

The plaintiff sought oppression relief under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998 and argued that such claims were not arbitrable and must be determined by the court.

The moving parties relied on a broad arbitration clause and the mediation-arbitration framework under s. 132 of the Act.

Applying the competence-competence principle under the Arbitration Act, 1991, the court held that it was at least arguable that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the arbitrator should determine jurisdiction in the first instance.

The proceeding was stayed and the dispute directed to mediation and, failing settlement, arbitration.

The moving parties sought an order converting an application into an action in a dispute between condominium corporations concerning alleged oppressive conduct and administration of a shared facilities agreement.

The responding party argued the matter could proceed by application because the material facts were not disputed and delay would result from conversion.

The court held that the allegations involved complex factual disputes, potential expert evidence concerning building systems and structural issues, and credibility assessments inappropriate for determination on an application record.

Considering Rule 38.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the governing jurisprudence, the court found that the interests of justice and procedural fairness required the matter to proceed as an action.

Following a successful appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, the court determined costs for both a preliminary motion and the appeal.

The respondent condominium corporation sought costs after successfully opposing a motion to strike portions of its factum and compendium.

The appellant management company sought substantial costs for the appeal after the court allowed the appeal and found the trial judge’s reasons insufficient.

The court applied Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that the requested appeal costs were slightly disproportionate to the value of the underlying claim.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the respondent for the preliminary motion, and $10,000 all-inclusive costs were awarded to the appellant for the appeal.

The appellant property management company appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing its breach of contract claim arising from the termination of a three‑year property management agreement.

The respondent condominium corporation had terminated the agreement for cause, alleging insubordination, recklessness, or gross negligence.

The appellate court held that the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient because they failed to clearly identify which acts constituted cause for termination or explain why individually insufficient acts collectively justified termination.

The absence of adequate reasoning prevented meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for a new trial before a different deputy judge.

Following the dismissal of defendants’ summary judgment motions and related motions to set aside an Anton Piller order, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The defendants had argued the plaintiff’s action was barred by limitation periods under s. 18(5) of the Radiocommunication Act and the Ontario Limitations Act and sought dismissal on summary judgment.

The court held that the motions were unreasonable given the extensive factual disputes, credibility issues, and evidentiary record requiring trial under the “full appreciation test” articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch.

The defendants also unsuccessfully sought to challenge the Anton Piller order.

Costs were therefore awarded to the plaintiff on a substantial‑indemnity basis.

The defendants brought motions to set aside an Anton Piller order and to exclude evidence obtained under it, and also sought summary judgment dismissing the action on limitation grounds.

The action alleged an unauthorized SMATV scheme distributing encrypted satellite television programming to hundreds of tenants using residential subscriber accounts, contrary to the Radiocommunication Act, contract, and tort principles.

The court held that the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case and that the Anton Piller order was properly granted, finding no failure of full and frank disclosure.

The court also found that complex factual disputes, credibility issues, and allegations of fraudulent concealment prevented determination of limitation defences on summary judgment.

Both the motions to set aside the Anton Piller order and the motions for summary judgment were dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a compliance order requiring the respondent unit owners to remove unauthorized landscaping alterations from the common elements adjacent to their properties.

The respondents argued the application was barred by the Limitations Act, the failure to mediate under the Condominium Act, and equitable defences including laches.

The court granted the application, finding that the alterations violated section 98 of the Condominium Act, which cannot be overridden by delay or equitable defences, and that mediation is not a mandatory precondition for enforcing statutory compliance.

However, the court reduced the applicant's costs award by 20% because it unreasonably refused to mediate before litigating.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, sought an oppression remedy against the condominium corporation regarding the enforcement of a parking garage height restriction that prevented them from parking their van underground.

The applicants alleged the corporation's conduct, including installing a steel beam, issuing limited visitor passes, and engaging in litigation, was oppressive and unfair.

The court dismissed the application, finding the corporation acted reasonably in enforcing its declaration and balancing the interests of all residents, and that the applicants' expectations were not objectively reasonable.