7 total
The court declared the purchaser in breach of a condominium agreement and ordered the $197,485 deposit forfeited.
The applicant, a condominium developer, sought declarations that the respondent purchaser breached an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) by failing to close, that the agreement was terminated, and that the deposits paid by the respondent were forfeited.
The respondent argued misrepresentation, claiming the property was not a new pre-construction unit as understood, but an already constructed and occupied model suite.
The court found the respondent in breach of the APS, noting inconsistencies in the respondent's sworn affidavits regarding the agreement's validity.
The court granted the applicant's request, ordering the forfeiture and disbursement of the deposits to the applicant.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as the underlying order was not a final order.
The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the order as issued and entered was not a final order.
Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the responding party.
The court dismissed a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent neighbours from replacing a fence on a municipal laneway.
The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent their neighbours from removing an existing fence and constructing a new one on a municipal laneway.
The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions (serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, balance of convenience).
The court found no serious issue to be tried as the respondents had no current intention to interfere with the fence, especially after the City clarified its policy against new encroachments.
The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction.
The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed, though leave to amend the Statement of Claim was granted.
The court granted leave to amend a claim to plead contra proferentem but denied amendments alleging breach of good faith without supporting material facts.
The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim to add allegations of breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and to plead the doctrine of *contra proferentem*.
The court denied the amendments related to good faith and fair dealing, finding them to be unsupported legal conclusions without material facts.
However, the court granted leave to add the *contra proferentem* plea, deeming it a point of law permissible under the rules, despite its questionable value and the absence of supporting facts, and finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.
Condominium corporation awarded $50,000 in substantial indemnity costs for trial to collect common expense arrears.
Following a trial where the plaintiff Condominium Corporation was substantially successful in collecting common expense arrears, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.
The plaintiff sought $58,448.97, while the defendants proposed $32,000.
Applying section 85(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and considering the plaintiff's unaccepted Rule 49 offer to settle, the court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $50,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be added to the liens registered on the defendants' unit.
Condominium liens upheld for common expenses and enforcement costs, but compliance legal costs disallowed for lack of mediation.
The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a summary trial to determine the amounts owing under two liens registered against the defendants' unit for unpaid common expenses, charge-backs, and legal costs.
The defendants, who had a long history of conflict with the condominium board, disputed the charges and the validity of the liens.
The court found the liens were validly registered and upheld the common expense arrears and charge-backs.
However, the court disallowed the plaintiff's claim for compliance legal costs because the plaintiff had failed to attempt mediation as required by the Condominium Act.
The court fixed the total amount secured by the liens at $117,287, which included a 25% reduction in the legal fees claimed for the lien enforcement proceeding.
The Court upheld a permanent injunction restricting a condominium owner's harassing communications and conduct.
The appellants, condominium owners, appealed a permanent injunction issued by the Superior Court of Justice.
The injunction restricted the male appellant's communication and conduct due to a long-standing pattern of harassment, rude behavior, and interference with the condominium corporation's board and employees, in violation of the Condominium Act.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's jurisdiction, the appropriateness of the injunction under s. 134(3) of the Condominium Act, and the fairness of the proceedings despite the denial of an adjournment and the appellant's failure to file a proper affidavit.
