Patricia Conway

The appellant declarant registered a condominium declaration requiring the respondent condominium corporation to purchase a manager's unit.

After a turnover meeting, the newly elected board of directors purported to terminate the purchase agreement pursuant to s. 112 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The application judge dismissed the appellant's application to enforce the purchase.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the power to terminate agreements under s. 112 does not extend to obligations arising from a condominium declaration, which has a distinct and higher legal status under the Act.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his former employer terminated his employment because of two workplace injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the employer had any knowledge of the alleged injuries prior to his termination.

As the employer was unaware of the injuries, they could not have been a factor in the decision to terminate his employment.

The application was dismissed.

Following a successful appeal where the appellant prevailed on all issues, the court determined the costs of the underlying trial and application.

The appellant sought over $270,000 in total costs.

Applying the principles of fairness and reasonableness, the Court of Appeal fixed the appellant's costs of the trial at $150,000 and the costs of the application at $25,000, payable by the respondents.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a trial decision regarding the conversion of a commercial building into a residential condominium.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent Lomico was a 'declarant' under the Condominium Act, that a lease of HVAC equipment to the condominium corporation was null and void because the equipment formed part of the common elements, and that the developers breached the construction warranty by failing to substantially renovate the parking garage.

The Court dismissed the developers' cross-appeal, affirming that unit owners have an appurtenant property right to lease parking spaces at market rates.

Damages and market rates were directed to a reference.

The appellant, a condominium unit owner, appealed an order restricting his statutory right to examine condominium records and prohibiting him from coming within 25 feet of the management office.

The application judge had found his unrelenting requests amounted to harassment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the complete elimination of his statutory right of access and the broad injunctive relief too extreme, especially since the conduct did not amount to actionable harassment.

The court set aside the injunctive components but upheld the requirements that requests be made in writing and photocopying charges be paid in advance.

The complainant, a condominium owner, alleged discrimination on the basis of family status because the condominium's rules restricted children under 16 from using certain recreational facilities, such as the fitness room and whirlpool, and limited their swimming pool hours.

The Board of Inquiry found that access to the recreational facilities was an integral part of the occupancy of accommodation.

While the age-based restrictions did not constitute direct discrimination on the basis of family status, they had a disparate negative impact on parents, amounting to constructive discrimination.

The Board concluded that the rules in place at the time of the complaint failed to accommodate the complainant's needs short of undue hardship, although subsequent rule changes were found to be a reasonable balance.

The respondents were ordered to pay $500 in general damages and to ensure parent representation on the recreation committee.

The applicant employer applied under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had served a notice to bargain but failed to commence negotiations for approximately twelve months, offering no valid explanation other than having forgotten about the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the union had slept on its bargaining rights without reasonable excuse, prejudicing the employees.

The Board ordered a representation vote to determine if the employees still desired to be represented by the union.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for construction labourers employed by the respondent in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector in Ontario.

The respondent alleged improper conduct by the union during organizing, but failed to adduce evidence to substantiate the claims.

The Board interpreted section 131a of the Labour Relations Act and determined that the applicant was entitled to two certificates: one for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector province-wide, and another for all other sectors in the relevant geographic area, excluding employees already covered by subsisting collective agreements.