Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: September 30, 2019 Docket: C66212 Judges: Doherty, Harvison Young and Thorburn JJ.A.
Between
Remi Chapadeau and Shawn Henderson Applicant (Appellants)
and
Siobhan Mary Devlin, Kathryn Prud'Homme, Donald Murphy, Jacques Ferron, Suzanne Ferron, Dale Sheehan, Carol Sheehan, Meredith Porter, Paulus Christianus Maria Wubben, Robert Stanley Smith, Paula Smith, Brian Grant, Tushara Williams, Michel Carbonneau, Stephane Rose, Paul Makdissi, Myra Yazbeck, Allan Taylor, Richard Gourgon, Una Couture, Chris Dean, Brent Taylor, Risa Taylor, Michel Duhamel, Christine Bray-Duhamel, Melvin Hartman, Joan Rosenberg-Hartman, Wladyslaw Danielak, Maria Danielak, Brian Woodland, Gayla Woodland, Patricia Lamontagne, Marie Athala Bordeleau, Timothy McCunn, Barbara Carol Janik, Jamie Daniel, Joseph Turcotte, Deborah Lisa Turcotte, Polly Mary Eden-Walker, Kathleen Lundgren, Steve Furr, Joseph Victor Derraugh, Patricia Mac Allan, David Edward Seibel, Jerzy Jurewicz, Zofia Orlowska-Jurewicz, Julie Elizabeth Anne Hopkins, Dusan Madric, Stanica Karadzik, James Thomas Strang, Barbara Strang, Michael Harrison, Virginia Harrison, Alvin Beltram, Emma Christina Verdun, David James Tappin, Roger Paul, Jocelyne Lemery-Paul, Sandra Lee-Morvai, Johanne D'Auray, Catherine Barnes, Lionel Lobo, Paulette Martel, Richard Martel, Ronald Benson, Linda Benson, Eric MacMillan, Susan Major-MacMillan, Francois Gagnon, Suzanne Simard, Jerry Valihora, Judith Cornell, Elizabeth Lynn Johnson, Anthony John White, Simonne White, Jack Hugues, Nicole Butcher, Kevin Goodhue, Monica Goodhue, Artur Oldak, Dorota Oldak, Louise Larocque, Suzanne Marie Catherine Lapensee, Louise Maguire Wellington, Mirza Mansukh Jahani, Paul Douglas Dickson, Andrew William McCauley, Sylvana Maria Gatto, Estelle Heron, Addo Boafo, and Nouhad Hamad
Respondents (Respondents in Appeal)
Counsel
Remi Chapadeau, self-represented
Christy Allen and Melinda Andrews, for the respondents, Michael Duhamel, Emma Verdun and Catherine Barnes
Heard and Released
Heard and released orally: September 20, 2019
On appeal from: the judgment of Justice Robyn M. Ryan Bell of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 10, 2019.
Reasons for Decision
[1] We are in substantial agreement with the reasons of the application judge on the application. We are satisfied that she accurately identified the applicable legal principles, properly considered those authorities as they applied to this case, and did not, in our view, err in the manner in which she applied them to the facts before her. The provision in question (s. 6.2) is enforceable. The appeal from the order dismissing the application is dismissed.
[2] In respect of the application for leave to appeal the costs order made against the appellants, we accept the respondent's argument that the application judge's interpretation of the combined effect of s. 3.7 and s. 11 of the Shared Property Agreement was a reasonable one. On that interpretation, the members of the committee were entitled to indemnification of legal costs from the Common Fund (s. 3.7). As "other owners", they were entitled to indemnification of costs caused by the acts of the appellants, who were also "owners" (s. 11). On the application judge's interpretation, which we accept as a reasonable one, the costs order cannot be challenged. The respondents were entitled to costs on a substantial indemnity basis. We would not grant leave to appeal the costs order.
[3] The appeal is dismissed and leave to appeal the costs order is refused.
[4] We are satisfied that the respondents are entitled to their costs in this court on the same basis that they were entitled to their costs below. They are entitled to costs on a substantial indemnity basis as a result of the terms of the Shared Property Agreement referred to above. However, we are not satisfied at this point that we can determine the appropriate amount of those costs. Consequently, the costs will have to be assessed on a substantial indemnity scale.
"Doherty J.A."
"Harvison Young J.A."
"J.A. Thorburn J.A."
