Safia J. Lakhani

The applicant, Neilson Creek Housing Co-operative Inc., sought a writ of possession under section 171.13 of the Co-operative Corporations Act for a unit occupied by the respondents, Erin Vella and her daughter Emily-Rose Ellis, who were not members of the Co-operative.

The respondents had been long-term guests of a former member, Tony Vella, whose membership and occupancy rights were terminated after he ceased to reside in the unit.

The court granted the writ of possession, finding it had jurisdiction as no member occupied the unit and that it was not unfair to issue the writ, given the respondents had no independent right to occupy the unit and the Co-operative had a long waiting list for units.

The writ was made effective 60 days from the release of the reasons.

This decision addresses costs arising from a previous ruling where the Ellison Defendant's motion for leave to examine witnesses was denied, and motions by the plaintiffs, the Crown, and Iler Campbell LLP to quash summonses were granted.

The successful parties sought costs, with the plaintiffs and Iler requesting substantial indemnity due to the Ellison Defendant's conduct, which included voluminous, unhelpful, and amended materials, and an abuse of process by issuing irrelevant summonses to delay proceedings.

The Crown sought partial indemnity costs.

The Ellison Defendant did not submit costs arguments.

The court found the Ellison Defendant's conduct unnecessarily lengthened proceedings and constituted an abuse of process.

While not egregious enough for full substantial indemnity, the conduct warranted more than partial indemnity.

The court fixed costs for the plaintiffs, Iler, and the Crown, ordering the Ellison Defendant to pay.

The court addressed multiple motions, primarily the Ellison Defendant's motion for leave to examine non-parties and various motions to quash summonses issued by the Ellison Defendant.

The court denied the Ellison Defendant's request for leave, finding that the proposed witnesses lacked relevant evidence and that the examinations would constitute an abuse of process as the information was already available.

Additionally, Crown immunity prevented compelling testimony from Ministry of the Attorney General employees.

The summonses issued by the Ellison Defendant were quashed.

The applicant sought an order appointing an administrator for the respondent condominium corporation, alleging the Board of Directors failed to act in the corporation's best interests, specifically regarding reserve fund maintenance and parking issues.

The court considered five factors for administrator appointment, noting that while the Board's past performance was substandard, recent actions had improved.

The application was dismissed, but without prejudice to a future application, and the respondent was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs to the applicant, acknowledging the applicant's efforts prompted the Board's improvements.

The plaintiff, a former resident of a co-operative housing provider, commenced an action seeking $1,000,000 in damages for alleged robbery, theft, and negligence arising from his 2009 eviction.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the statement of claim and dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the action was commenced well beyond the two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the court held that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an abuse of process, as the eviction was conducted lawfully under the co-operative's bylaws and the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate issues previously dismissed by the Human Rights Tribunal.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant on a substantial indemnity basis.