Natasha Leslie Mazzitelli

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 applicant unit owner submitted a records request to the respondent condominium corporation.

Although initially approved without fees, the corporation later demanded fees for non-core records after a change in legal counsel and board policy, causing significant delay.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found this delay amounted to an unreasonable refusal and assessed a $300 penalty against the corporation.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims that the records ultimately provided—including board minutes, hallway project specifications, and AGM voting results—were inadequate under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The corporation was ordered to reimburse half of the applicant's Tribunal filing fees.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking compliance with a prior settlement agreement regarding the production of condominium records.

The parties agreed to settle the matter in Stage 3.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide the outstanding records, subject to necessary redactions, and to reimburse the applicant's $125 filing fee.

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 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.

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.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed a request for core and non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided most core records but withheld certain non-core records, including legal invoices and historical service agreements, citing the broad nature of the request and demanding labour fees for redaction and retrieval.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the applicant was not on a fishing expedition and was entitled to the outstanding non-core records.

However, the Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to charge a reasonable fee of $60 to $75 per hour, up to a maximum of $450, for the labour required to retrieve and redact the records.

The Tribunal declined to award a penalty but ordered the respondent to pay $200 in costs to the applicant.

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.

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.