The appellants appealed a decision finding that their conduct in registering a condominium declaration with a bifurcated common expense formula was oppressive.
The formula exempted undeveloped parcels from contributing to the maintenance of a ring road.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the declaration did not conflict with the Condominium Act, as the Act requires owners to contribute in the proportions specified in the declaration.
Furthermore, the developer's conduct was not oppressive because the formula was fully disclosed to purchasers before they bought their units, and it served a legitimate business purpose related to the staged nature of the development.