Puja Walia

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion to evict the respondent unit owner and force the sale of his unit, alleging he breached a prior Compliance Order and the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant relied on evidence from its security manager regarding the respondent's verbal altercations with staff and social media posts.

The court found the applicant's evidence to be largely inadmissible hearsay and highly prejudicial.

While the respondent's behaviour was rude and obnoxious, it did not constitute a breach of the Act or contempt of the Compliance Order.

The motion was dismissed without costs, subject to terms including the respondent's undertaking to vacate the unit until December 2025 and rent it out.

The applicant unit owners brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation regarding a water leak originating from their bathroom and alleging oppressive conduct.

The court found that the leak originated from an overflow pipe within the boundaries of the applicants' unit, making it their responsibility to repair, not the corporation's.

The court also dismissed the oppression claims, finding that the corporation's actions in investigating the leak, enforcing rules, and managing expenses were reasonable and did not constitute coercive or unfairly prejudicial conduct.

The applicant sought an order declaring Notices of Sale issued by the respondent condominium corporation against its units null and void, alleging non-compliance with the Condominium Act, the corporation's declaration, and by-laws.

The applicant argued that a special assessment was improperly levied without a budget, the notice of assessment lacked required information and was misleading, and funds were misappropriated.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the corporation had adopted a prior budget, the notice provided sufficient reasons for the assessment, the alleged misinformation was due to the applicant's non-payment, and no misappropriation of funds occurred as payments were reimbursements for expenses incurred on behalf of the corporation.

This is a costs endorsement following an unsuccessful application by Catharine Patricia Patterson.

The successful respondent, York Condominium Corporation No. 70, sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing for deterrence against unmeritorious lawsuits.

The unsuccessful applicant requested partial indemnity costs in her favour, despite losing the application.

The court, applying Rules 49 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, found the applicant's submissions unacceptable and the respondent's request for substantial indemnity costs unwarranted.

While agreeing the application lacked merit, the court did not find the threshold for substantial indemnity met.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs of $14,646, to be paid by the applicant.

The applicant sought declarations and orders against the condominium corporation and a board member for alleged failures to fulfill obligations under the Condominium Act, including inadequate funding of reserve accounts, failure to increase common expenses, and neglect of necessary repairs.

The respondents argued that the issues were being addressed by a new management company and that the business judgment rule applied.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the board had acted unfairly or unreasonably, or that court intervention was required.

The applicant, Gloucester Gate Inc., sought declarations of default and an order for vacant possession against a co-owner, Joseph Parlato, for unpaid plumbing repair costs and escalating legal fees.

Parlato initially failed to reimburse for repairs but subsequently paid the initial demand, including legal costs, under protest.

The court found that while Parlato was initially in breach, this default was cured by his payment.

The court determined that subsequent demands for "authorization" to release funds from counsel's trust account and additional legal/plumbing costs were unnecessary and prolonged the dispute.

The Corporation's application for further relief was dismissed, and Parlato was granted a refund for the additional amounts paid.