Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 37 v. Baha, 2025 ONSC 4449

CITATION: Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 37 v. Baha, 2025 ONSC 4449

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 320/24

DATE: 20250730

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

Heeney, Backhouse and Nakatsuru JJ.

BETWEEN:

WATERLOO NORTH CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 37 Appellant

– and –

ANTOANETA CLAUDIA BAHA Respondent

Michael Ruhl and Jamie Cockburn, for the Appellant

Jarvis Postnikoff, for the Respondent and Intervenor

– and –

JOSEPH MURPHY Intervenor

HEARD at Hamilton: June 4, 2025

Costs Addendum

BACKHOUSE J.

[1] The Reasons for Decision issued June 13, 2025 reserved the right to Ms. Baha and Mr. Murphy, if successful, to make submissions on costs being awarded on a full indemnity basis. Paragraph 54 of the Reasons stated:

In accordance with the parties’ agreement, Ms. Baha and Mr. Murphy are entitled to their costs fixed in the partial indemnity all inclusive amount of $17,500. Without precluding them from making submissions on costs being awarded on a full indemnity basis which they reserved the right to do if successful, our initial impression, without prejudice, is that the costs awarded seem appropriate in the circumstances.

[2] The Panel has now received and considered the parties’ costs submissions. Ms. Baha and Mr. Murphy seek $43,706.71 in full indemnity costs.

[3] The presumption is that costs will be awarded on a partial, rather than a full indemnity basis. There is not the type of misconduct present which would overcome that presumption.

[4] Section 134(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998 states:

(3) On an application, the court may, subject to subsection (4),

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection 134 (3) of the Act is amended by striking out “subject to subsection (4)” in the portion before clause (a). (See: 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 116 (4))

(a) grant the order applied for;

(b) require the persons named in the order to pay,

(i) the damages incurred by the applicant as a result of the acts of non-compliance, and

(ii) the costs incurred by the applicant in obtaining the order; or

(c) grant such other relief as is fair and equitable in the circumstances.

[5] Section 134(3) refers to an application, not to a statutory appeal. Ms. Baha and Mr. Murphy were not applicants in the underlying application. Both of the cases cited in support of full indemnity costs (Amlani v. York Condominium Corporation No. 473, 2020 ONSC 1190 and Matlock v. Ottawa-Carlton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 815, 2024 ONSC 6645) were applications, not appeals.

[6] The indemnification provisions of WNCC 37’s Declaration which apply to the “negligence or wrongful act or omission” of the corporation cannot reasonably be applied to WNCC 37’s appeal of a tribunal decision declining its application to have a dog removed from Ms. Baha’s unit. There are no public interest considerations at stake here.

[7] The application to have costs awarded on a full indemnity basis is dismissed. Ms. Baha and Mr. Murphy are entitled to costs in the all inclusive amount of $17, 500.

Backhouse J.

I agree Heeney J.

I agree Nakatsuru J.

Released: July 30, 2025