Michael A. Spears

The respondent commenced an action alleging the appellants fraudulently obtained and illegally transmitted its satellite programming to apartment tenants.

The appellants moved to stay the action under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, relying on an arbitration clause in the residential subscriber agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's dismissal of the stay, finding the appellants could not invoke the arbitration clause without acknowledging they were parties to it.

The Court also agreed that a partial stay under s. 7(5) was inappropriate as it would cause a multiplicity of proceedings, given that only a few of the 23 defendants were potentially bound by the agreement.

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.

The appellant condominium corporations appealed the dismissal of their application for an oppression remedy under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The appellants sought a declaration that the respondent developers acted oppressively by failing to provide a cost-sharing agreement for shared facilities between the residential condominiums and the commercial freehold ground floor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that the appellants failed to establish a breach of reasonable expectations or oppressive conduct, as the absence of a cost-sharing agreement was fully disclosed to purchasers.

The appellant condominium corporation obtained a compliance order against the respondent unit owner for operating a short-term rental business.

The appellant then added its actual legal and administrative costs to the respondent's common expenses and registered a lien under s. 85(1) of the Condominium Act.

The motion judge discharged the lien, finding that 'additional actual costs' under s. 134(5) did not include legal costs beyond those awarded by the court.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that s. 134(5) permits a condominium corporation to recover its actual legal costs incurred in obtaining the order, including appeal costs, but not enforcement or unrelated administrative costs.

A reference was ordered to determine the proper amount of the lien.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its application regarding the respondent keeping a dog in her unit.

The application judge had dismissed the application based on promissory estoppel, finding the respondent relied on assurances from the appellant's manager that keeping a dog was permissible.

The Court of Appeal found no error in this conclusion and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellants appealed the appointment of an administrator for a condominium corporation and the award of substantial indemnity costs against them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the appointment of the administrator, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that a state of disequilibrium existed due to tension between two groups with divergent interests regarding the transient use of units.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs and substituted an award of partial indemnity costs, finding no basis for substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its claim for intentional interference with contractual relations against a condominium corporation.

The condominium corporation had enforced rules prohibiting the rental of units for transient or hotel purposes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding overwhelming evidence that the units were used for such purposes and that the corporation was statutorily obliged to enforce its rules.

The court also agreed that the appellant failed to raise a triable issue regarding economic loss, as its evidence was merely second and third hand.

The complainant, a wheelchair user, alleged that her condominium corporation discriminated against her by refusing her access to the swimming pool unless she showered in the pool area.

The Board of Inquiry found that the shower area was not accessible to the complainant without a special bench, which was not provided until later.

The Board held that the condominium corporation failed to reasonably accommodate the complainant, as allowing her to shower in her own unit would not have caused undue hardship.

However, the Board declined to award damages due to the complainant's abusive behaviour and the lack of actual loss, ordering only that wheelchair users be permitted to shower in their units.