Patrick Anthony Greco

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application seeking an order to stop a unit owner from harassing its employees.

The respondent frequently sent abusive and insulting emails to the management office and verbally abused staff, calling them degrading names.

The court found that the respondent's conduct violated the Condominium Act's prohibition against activities likely to cause injury, including psychological harm, and constituted workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The court ordered the respondent to cease and desist from her uncivil, harassing, and abusive conduct.

Following the dismissal of an application, the successful respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after being personally named in allegations of bad faith and oppression.

The court considered Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, the seriousness of personal allegations against individual directors, and an earlier settlement proposal that could have resolved the dispute.

Although the applicant had an arguable issue relating to an allegedly undisclosed liability in a condominium status certificate, the court found the litigation strategy unnecessarily complex and disproportionate to the amount at stake.

Balancing these factors, the court declined substantial indemnity but awarded substantial costs reflecting the respondents’ success and the unnecessary allegations.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 payable within 30 days.

The applicant purchaser of a condominium unit sought relief alleging inadequate disclosure in the condominium corporation’s status certificate, arguing that undisclosed imminent roof repairs and expropriation funds rendered a subsequent special assessment inapplicable to its unit.

The corporation had received expropriation proceeds from a TTC project and placed them in the reserve fund to finance roof replacement.

A second special assessment was issued solely as an administrative mechanism to access those reserve funds and provided unit owners with options that resulted in no net financial change.

The court held that the status certificate’s disclosure did not result in prejudice because no increase in common expenses was required from unit owners.

The applicant was treated identically to other owners and suffered no financial disadvantage.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant landlord brought a Rule 21.01(b) motion to strike portions of an amended statement of claim alleging breach of an implied contractual duty of good faith in relation to the termination of a commercial lease.

The plaintiff tenant alleged it was promised 18 months’ notice to vacate but received significantly less, asserting that the landlord’s conduct breached an implied duty of honest and good faith performance.

The court held that Canadian jurisprudence does not recognize an implied duty of good faith that would impose additional obligations inconsistent with the express terms of a commercial lease.

Accepting the pleaded facts as true, the alleged conduct did not defeat the purpose of the lease and could not sustain a claim for breach of an implied duty of good faith.

The impugned paragraphs were struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, with leave to amend.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff’s action, the defendant sought costs on a solicitor‑client or substantial indemnity basis relying on a provision in a release.

The plaintiff conceded entitlement to costs but argued that the provision applied only to third‑party proceedings and that the usual partial indemnity scale should apply.

The court held that the release provision did not apply to the litigation and that no misconduct justified elevated costs.

Applying Rule 57.01 factors, the court found the defendant’s partial indemnity claim reasonable and awarded costs accordingly.

Condominium unit owners sought removal of a certificate of lien and correction of a status certificate after the condominium corporation claimed additional legal costs under s.134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998 following a compliance order.

The corporation asserted it could add substantial additional legal fees as common expenses beyond the court-ordered costs.

The court held that s.134(5) permits recovery only of reasonable legal costs incurred in obtaining the compliance order, not costs incurred afterwards in attempting to enforce or escalate the dispute.

Finding the corporation’s claimed $41,599.45 unreasonable for a simple application largely resolved by consent, the court assessed the recoverable costs at $6,500 inclusive of prior awards.

The lien was ordered vacated and the corporation ordered to pay costs of the motion.

The appellant appealed from a judgment striking its pleadings for failing to disclose a cause of action relating to a breach of a duty of good faith.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action and noted that leave to amend had been granted.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's assessment of damages and dismissal of claims regarding a fraudulent kick-back scheme perpetrated by two officers of the appellant company and its suppliers.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in deducting advances made by the officers from the damages awarded for secret commissions, as the officers had no authority to borrow money from the bank to repay themselves.

The damages against the officers and their company were increased to $73,641.45.

The court also set aside a counterclaim judgment in favour of a supplier, finding he had already been fully paid.

The remainder of the appeal, including claims against the bank for unauthorized withdrawals and altered documents, and claims for punitive damages, was dismissed.