6 total
Condominium corporation ordered to pay $45,000 in damages for oppression after approving non-compliant rooftop renovations without consulting neighbour.
The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought an oppression remedy under s. 135 of the Condominium Act against the condominium corporation, its board members, and property management.
The applicant alleged that the board unfairly disregarded her interests by approving a neighbouring unit's non-compliant rooftop terrace renovation without prior notice or consultation, as required by s. 98 of the Act.
The court found that the condominium corporation's failure to consult the applicant breached her reasonable expectations and constituted an unfair disregard of her interests.
The court awarded the applicant $45,000 in damages against the condominium corporation, but dismissed the claims against the individual board members and property management.
The court granted a condominium compliance order but denied costs due to shared responsibility.
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 Court of Appeal dismissed the condominium owners' appeal, upholding the application judge's factual findings.
The appellants sought orders under sections 134 and 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998, alleging various incidents and an ongoing failure by the respondents to reasonably respond to inquiries.
The appeal court was asked to overturn findings of fact made by the application judge.
The court found that all of the application judge's findings were reasonably open on the record and, therefore, dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.
Appeal from LTB eviction order dismissed as the issues raised were questions of fact, not law.
The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy to allow the respondent landlord to convert the unit to a non-residential use.
The appellants argued the Board erred by denying an adjournment, finding the landlord required possession, and refusing discretionary relief from eviction.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issues raised were questions of fact or discretionary decisions, not extricable questions of law as required for a statutory appeal under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Condominium oppression application dismissed; board acted reasonably in response to owner's excessive communications.
The applicants, condominium unit owners, brought an application against the condominium corporation and its board of directors seeking an oppression remedy and compliance orders under the Condominium Act.
The applicants alleged the board acted oppressively by ignoring communications, mishandling an elevator malfunction, and copying the applicants' employers on a warning letter regarding harassment.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the board acted reasonably and in good faith in response to the applicants' excessive communications.
The court also held that several of the applicants' claims were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and that defamation claims could not be brought via application.
Summary judgment granted dismissing plaintiff's claims as barred by a prior release and limitation periods.
The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action.
The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, failed to attend the virtual hearing despite receiving notice.
The court found that the plaintiff's claims regarding condominium liens and related disputes were either barred by a full and final release signed in a 2009 action, statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, or raised no genuine issue requiring a trial.
The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.
