The applicant developer sought oppression relief under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998 to compel a condominium corporation to sign a resort access licence agreement for shared amenities in a resort-style development.
The court held that the applicant was a successor declarant with standing and that the condominium corporation remained obliged under its declaration to enter into a licence agreement, notwithstanding its attempted declaration amendment and arguments based on s. 112.
However, the court found that the refusal to sign the specific agreement tendered was not oppressive because the proposed terms left fees, rules, closures, and future charges substantially within the developer's unilateral control.
The proper course, if terms cannot be agreed, is mediation and arbitration under s. 132.
The application was dismissed.
