The applicant condominium corporation sought relief under sections 113 and 135 of the Condominium Act, alleging that the respondent declarant failed to adequately disclose the provisions of a Shared Amenities Agreement (SAA) and that the SAA's operation was oppressive.
The court found that while the declarant failed to disclose that future phases of the development would not proceed, the applicant did not prove this non-disclosure produced an oppressive or unconscionably prejudicial result.
The court dismissed the oppression claims, noting the applicant had withheld its share of expenses for over five years and should utilize the SAA's arbitration mechanism to resolve its operational disputes.
