M. Mackey

The respondents in a condominium application brought a motion to compel the applicant to answer refusals from the cross-examination of four deponents and to compel the deponents to re-attend.

The underlying application involved allegations that the respondents engaged in a campaign of harassment against condominium management and directors.

The court reviewed the disputed refusals, ordering the applicant to provide written clarifications for a small number of questions where the deponents' answers were incomplete.

The balance of the motion was dismissed, and the request for re-attendance was denied as disproportionate.

The moving parties, purchasers of condominium units, brought a motion seeking a declaration that the court-appointed receiver had no right to charge a 'parks levy' as an adjustment on the closing of their units.

The receiver argued that the contractual provision allowed it to charge the purchasers for the notional value of parkland conveyed to the municipality.

The court found that the contractual language was ambiguous and, applying the principles of contractual interpretation and contra proferentem in the context of a consumer contract, ruled in favour of the purchasers.

The receiver was ordered to repay the parks levy amounts with interest.