Rodrique Escayola

This motion for summary judgment concerned an oppression claim brought by a condominium unit owner against the Condominium Corporation, its property manager, and superintendent.

The owner alleged oppressive conduct stemming primarily from the Corporation's decision to charge him for remediation costs after he left eggs cooking unattended, leading to smoke damage, and subsequently registering a lien on his unit for unpaid common expenses, which ultimately resulted in the power of sale of his home.

The owner also raised ancillary claims regarding cleaning product contracts, parking, and water leaks.

The court found that the Corporation acted reasonably and within its statutory powers in remediating the damage and registering the lien.

It was determined that the owner's own negligence and unreasonable refusal to mitigate his losses were the cause of his home's sale.

The court dismissed all of the owner's claims, granting summary judgment in favour of the Corporation.

The applicants sought costs of $91,250 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis following their success in a previous oppression application.

The respondent objected, proposing $44,134.20 on a partial indemnity scale.

The court reduced the applicants' claim by $7,910 for pre-litigation costs but allowed travel disbursements for Ottawa-based counsel.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs, finding the respondent's conduct sanction-worthy due to its unreasonable and aggressive litigation tactics, including breaching its own constating documents and failing to engage in good faith mediation.

The final costs awarded to the applicants were $83,340.

The individual defendants brought a motion to strike claims against them, arguing that the plaintiff's amendment to its statement of claim improperly withdrew an admission regarding the timing of alleged conduct, and that the claim failed to plead the required particulars for negligent misrepresentation.

The court held that the dates provided in the plaintiff's response to a demand for particulars were factual pleadings, not deliberate admissions, and could be amended without leave.

However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to plead the essential elements of negligent misrepresentation against the individual defendants.

The negligent misrepresentation claim was struck.

The applicants sought to restrain the sale of their condominium unit, which the respondent corporation purported to lien under s. 85 of the Condominium Act, 1998, for compliance and enforcement expenses.

The applicants also claimed damages for oppression.

The court found the lien invalid as the expenses fell under s. 134, requiring a court order, which was absent.

The court further found the corporation acted oppressively by refusing good faith negotiation, imposing an invalid lien, and attempting to sell the unit, awarding the applicants $9,679.75 in damages.

The court also set aside the corporation's decision not to grandfather the applicants' unit under a new non-smoking rule.

The applicants sought guardianship of their adult niece, H.A., and a declaration of incapacity.

The respondent father initially opposed but later did not oppose these orders.

The court found the respondent's opposition to the guardianship and incapacity declaration to be tactical and without merit, warranting substantial indemnity costs for that aspect.

However, the applicants had conflated guardianship issues with unresolved family law support issues, which generated unnecessary costs.

The court awarded the applicants one-third of their claimed substantial indemnity costs, specifically $14,000 plus HST, attributable to the incapacity/guardianship issues, with other costs to be determined in ongoing family law proceedings.