Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-24-00726589-0000
Date: 2025-06-06
Court: Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 534, Applicant
And: Christine Antunes and Coralia Maria Antunes, Respondents

Before: Parghi J.

Counsel:
Megan Mackey, for the Applicant
Christine Antunes, self-represented
Coralia Maria Antunes, self-represented

Heard: June 5, 2025 (in writing)

Endorsement on Costs

Background

[1] By Endorsement dated April 7, 2025, I granted an order directing the Respondent Christine Antunes (“Christine”) to permanently vacate the condominium unit in which she lives, within 120 days. I held that the conduct of Christine and her mother, the Respondent Coralia Antunes (“Coralia”), who owns the condominium unit, was contrary to the provisions of the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19 (the “Act”) and the Condominium’s Declaration and Rules.

[2] I did not make any order as to costs because the Respondents had not provided any costs submissions. I invited the Respondents to provide their written submissions on costs within 30 days of the Endorsement. They provided their submissions and I have reviewed them closely.

[3] I now provide this Endorsement on costs.

Whether the Condominium is Entitled to Recover Its Costs

[4] The Condominium asks for an order that the Respondents pay its “full indemnity” costs of this application. In other words, the Condominium asks me to order Christine and Coralia to pay 100% of its costs in this litigation. The Condominium also requests an order that such costs can be recovered as additional common expenses for the unit. The Condominium relies on section 6.01 of its Declaration and Rules, which provides that each unit owner “shall indemnify” the Condominium from any costs the Corporation incurs “resulting from or caused by” the owner or their tenant with respect to the common elements. It also relies on subsection 134(5) of the Act, which states that where a condominium corporation obtains a compliance order against a unit owner that has a cost component, the costs ordered and any additional actual costs incurred by the condominium in obtaining the order shall be added to a unit’s common expenses.

[5] I should not consider section 134(5) of the Act to derogate from my obligation to determine reasonable costs between the parties. My discretion to award reasonable costs between the parties operates independently of any entitlement the Condominium may have under the Act, or its Declaration and Rules, to recover from the Respondents the actual costs it has incurred as a result of their conduct (Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2931 v. Tsatskin, 2024 ONSC 6392, at para. 65; Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 1385 v. Skyline Executive Properties Inc., paras 45, 49; Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1466 v. Weinstein, 2021 ONSC 3526, para. 9; Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2136 v. Longhurst (May 22, 2024), Toronto, CV-24-00713169-0000 (S.C.), at para. 31). Indeed, this court has held that there is a “compelling” policy rationale against routinely granting full indemnity costs in condominium disputes – namely, that the risk of adverse costs awards can “discourage unreasonable, abusive conduct” (Weinstein, at para. 11).

[6] In exercising my discretion to fix costs under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, I may consider the factors enumerated in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. Those factors include the result achieved, the amounts claimed and recovered, the complexity and importance of the issues in the proceeding, the principle of indemnity, the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, and any other matter relevant to costs.

[7] In Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 587, para. 60, the Court of Appeal for Ontario restated the general principles to be applied when courts exercise their discretion to award costs. The Court held that, when assessing costs, a court is to undertake a critical examination of the relevant factors, as applied to the costs claimed, and then “step back and consider the result produced and question whether, in all the circumstances, the result is fair and reasonable”.

Application of the Criteria

[8] Applying these criteria here, I note, first, that the Condominium was successful in the application. The time spent by the Condominium on its application materials was reasonable: several affidavits were prepared, in addition to an initial factum and subsequent facta to respond to new arguments from the Respondents. The Condominium’s materials were also of considerable assistance to the court. It is therefore appropriate for the Condominium to be indemnified for the reasonable costs it incurred in pursuing the application.

[9] However, I decline to award costs on a “full indemnity,” or 100%, basis. The Respondents have not engaged in any conduct that warrants sanction by way of such an enhanced costs award. While the hearing was more protracted than might have been ideal, the duration of the hearing was in part attributable to the challenges Christine faces as an individual with an addiction, and not to any deliberate improper conduct on her part. As such, an award for full indemnity would not be appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

[10] The Condominium’s full costs are $41,501.83, including HST and disbursements. On a “partial indemnity” scale, its costs would be 60% of this amount, or $25,471.65, including HST and disbursements.

[11] I discount this amount on the basis that some increased costs are “reasonably attributable to the difficulties inherent in litigating with a person with special needs or disabilities. It is not undue hardship to expect a litigant opposite to bear some small increased costs risk to accommodate the needs of a party under disability” (MTCC No. 580 v. Mills, 2021 ONSC 3440, para. 23). In the circumstances of this case, it is fair and reasonable for the Condominium to absorb some of the costs associated with litigating against an individual with Christine’s addiction issues.

[12] Additionally, the evidence of both Christine and Diane is that Christine has no paid employment and is currently receiving Ontario Disability Support Program benefits. In my view, paying a large costs award would cause significant hardship to her – even more so when she and her family will likely be incurring additional expense in order to move her into new housing. The Respondents’ costs submissions also discuss Coralia’s financial limitations and Coralia testified during the hearing that she works cleaning people’s homes. I take these considerations into account in exercising my discretion to fix costs, as I am entitled to do under Rule 57.01.

Disposition

[13] Based on the above considerations, I order the Respondents to pay $7,500.00 in costs to the Condominium, inclusive of HST. This amount shall be added to the Unit’s common expenses per section 134(5) of the Act. In my view, this is a fair and reasonable costs award.

Rohit Parghi
Date: June 6, 2025