S. Hodis

Following an earlier costs endorsement, the respondents objected to the applicant’s reply submissions, arguing they exceeded the page limit set by the court and should be ruled inadmissible.

The court determined that the reply submissions were proper reply and therefore admissible, but accepted that the applicant’s non‑compliance with the page limit affected the costs incurred.

As a result, the court reduced the costs attributable to the reply submissions.

The court varied the earlier costs endorsement and ordered the respondents to pay a reduced amount in costs to the applicant.

Following a successful condominium compliance application requiring the removal of a dog exceeding the condominium corporation’s weight restriction, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The respondents had argued the dog was required as a therapy animal and alleged discrimination under the Human Rights Code, but failed to establish a prima facie case.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized fairness and reasonableness in fixing costs.

The court held that full indemnity costs are generally appropriate in condominium compliance proceedings to avoid shifting enforcement costs onto innocent unit owners.

The respondents were ordered to pay $47,000 in costs jointly and severally, recoverable as common expenses and enforceable as a lien against the condominium unit if unpaid.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondents to permanently remove a dog weighing over 25 pounds from their unit, in compliance with the condominium's rules.

The respondents argued the dog was a service/therapy dog required for the respondent's mental disability and sought accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The court found the respondents failed to establish a disability within the meaning of the Code, as the medical evidence only cited stress and lacked a specific diagnosis.

The court ordered the removal of the dog and declared the applicant had not discriminated against the respondents.

Following settlement of an application brought by a condominium corporation to enforce compliance with condominium rules and compel sale of a unit, the only remaining issue was costs.

The corporation sought full indemnity costs exceeding $59,000.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, noting the respondent’s prolonged non-compliance with the condominium’s declaration, rules, and by-laws despite repeated warnings.

While recognizing that full indemnity costs were appropriate in condominium enforcement proceedings where owners’ misconduct forces litigation, the court reduced certain claimed fees as excessive.

The court fixed costs on a full indemnity basis at $48,692.09 and ordered that unpaid costs be added to the unit’s common expenses and secured as a lien under the Condominium Act.

Two condominium corporations disputed responsibility for utility costs associated with shared cooling towers located on the respondent’s property but servicing the applicant’s building.

The applicant sought a stay of a Superior Court action commenced by the respondent and requested that the dispute proceed through mediation and arbitration pursuant to a Shared Facilities Agreement and s.132 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court held that the agreement and statute required disputes between condominium corporations concerning shared facilities to proceed through mediation and arbitration.

The respondent’s argument that the matter should remain in court due to an unjust enrichment claim was rejected, as arbitral tribunals may grant equitable remedies under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court stayed the Toronto action and directed the parties to follow the contractual and statutory dispute resolution process.

The applicant condominium corporation sought costs following a successful application to stay the respondent's action and an earlier injunction preventing the respondent from shutting off air conditioning services.

The court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs for the injunction phase, finding the respondent's threats to shut off services unreasonable and unnecessary.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs for the stay phase, as the respondent improperly pursued a court action instead of the mandatory mediation and arbitration process.

Total costs of $32,147.88 were awarded to the applicant.