Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2181 v. Burlakov et al, 2026 ONSC 4354

1The remaining issue in this application is to fix costs.

2The application was commenced as a result of Konstantin Burlakov’s suffering from mental health issues with resulting concerning behaviour including alleged assaults on staff and residents. This occurred while he was residing with his mother and the respondent, Svitlana Burlakova’s unit in the applicant’s condominium.

Background

3January 24, 2025, I granted an ex parte motion for injunctive relief excluding Konstantin Burlakov from the applicant’s premises being 209 and 215 Fort York Boulevard. Unbeknownst to me, Konstatin Burlakov had been admitted to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health on January 21, 2025 for treatment. Fortunately, he has subsequently substantially improved.

4The respondents retained counsel who successfully sought leave to appeal my order and be granted a stay which was successful, on terms, before the Divisional Court (2025 ONSC 2026). I was advised that costs of that appeal were fixed in the amount of $7,000, payable by the applicant to the respondent.

5Thereafter, the parties engaged in discussions which resulted in resolution of the substantive issue as to whether the respondents could continue to reside within the applicant Condominium premises. A joint request was made that I sign a consent order at the conclusion of submissions on May 22, 2026 reflecting the ongoing obligation of the respondents to abide by Section 117 of the Condominium Act 1998, S.O.1998, c.19, which occurred.

6The applicant seeks its costs on the basis the core problem, being Konstantin Burlakov’s behaviour, necessitated the bringing of the application as part of its duty to protect its staff and residents. Its Costs Outline included a claim for full indemnity expenses totalling $38,125.94, inclusive of fees, HST and disbursements. The applicant acknowledged it should be reduced for the February 14 to April 9, 2025 timeframe (totalling $11,781.95 in fees, inclusive of HST) which were incurred contesting the leave to appeal on stay hearing before the Divisional Court and for which costs were fixed.

7The applicant relied on Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O.1990, c.C.43 and Rule 57.01 which generally favours costs being awarded to the successful party. In addition, it relied on Section 134(5) of the Condominium Act, supra and caselaw which provides for the adding of the Condominium Corporation legal costs to the common expenses of the unit involved. This automatic entitlement or right was addressed and, in my view, rejected, in York Condominium Corporation No. 327 v. Scotti, 2024 ONSC 2044 and with which I agreed (2025 ONSC 5361).

8The applicant Condominium Corporation relied on the logic that it was not fair or equitable for the other unit holders to subsidize the legal costs incurred to remedy inappropriate conduct by the offending unit owner.

9To the contrary, the respondent submitted that the order setting aside the ex parte order and negotiating a result of ongoing compliance with Condominium Act, supra and condominium by-laws, which fell short of what the Notice of Application sought, was a result in its favour and entitled the respondents to its costs.

10The respondents Costs Outline set out a total claim for $36,576.11, inclusive of partial indemnity fees, HST and disbursements rising to $54,522.50 for full indemnity fees, HST and disbursements. These amounts were also subject to deduction for the timeframe from February 14 to April 21, 2025 in the amount of $24,102.90 in full indemnity fees and HST as part of efforts to obtain leave to appeal and setting aside of the ex parte order. As indicated, those costs were fixed in the amount of $7,000 by the Court.

11In addition to its purported success, the respondents also relied on contact and communication between the parties in the days before the ex parte order of January 24, 2025 including advising that Konstantin Burlakov had been hospitalized. Thus, it questioned the need to proceed on an ex parte basis. Further, they alleged non-responsiveness on the part of the applicant necessitating the respondents being required to schedule a Case Conference. That Case Conference proceeded February 17, 2026 and confirmed the substantive issue had been resolved. It also scheduled this costs motion to proceed on May 22, 2026.

Analysis

12There is some merit in each side’s position. However, I disagree the applicant was unsuccessful to the point the respondent should receive its costs. The applicant was in a position that non-litigious efforts had not succeeded in resolving a physical threat to the staff and other residents. Further, however considerate one can and should be to mental health issues, the source of the problem was not of the applicant’s doing. Similarly, some recognition needs to be given to what was sought and what resulted which maintained the respondents’ right to remain in the premises so long they abide with the terms of the agreed upon resolution and Court order.

13As a result, upon consideration the factors set out in the Rule 57.01 and the authority granted under Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, supra, I order each side bear its own costs of this application.