Timothy M. Duggan

The applicant, a former condominium board president, alleged she experienced discrimination and harassment on the basis of age when she was removed as a signing officer and as board president.

She claimed another board member called her an 'old bitch' and said the board was not a place for old people.

The respondents denied the allegations, testifying that the applicant was removed because she actively opposed the board's decisions, specifically regarding the termination of the superintendent, and acted against the corporation's interests.

The Tribunal found the respondents' evidence credible and concluded that the applicant's removal was based on her conduct, not her age.

The application was dismissed.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy for persistent late payment of rent.

The tenants' appeal automatically stayed the eviction.

The Divisional Court found that the tenants' grounds of appeal were merely attempts to challenge the Board's factual findings and did not raise any genuine questions of law.

The court concluded the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit, quashed the appeal, and lifted the stay of the eviction order.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's appeal from an arbitrator's ruling, the successful respondent sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting that the applicant's appeal was largely without merit, caused unnecessary delay, and that the respondent had made a reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $18,008.88.

A condominium corporation appealed from a damages award of $18,000 and sought leave to appeal a costs award of $17,000 made under section 134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent unit owners had leased their condominium to tenants who vandalized common elements.

The corporation claimed $33,381.28 in damages and $52,637.56 in costs.

The application judge found certain repair expenditures disproportionate and reduced the damages award.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred in assessing security camera installation costs and in conflating two distinct types of costs under the Act.

The damages award was increased to $25,458 and the costs award was increased to $34,000.

York Condominium Corporation No. 201 (YCC 201) sought leave to appeal an arbitration award and to have it set aside.

The arbitration concerned disputes among three condominium corporations regarding their obligations to fund a shared recreation complex under a shared facilities agreement (SFA).

The Arbitrator had ruled that the SFA did not require audited financial statements or compliance with the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) as preconditions for monthly operating expense payments.

The court found that YCC 201's grounds for appeal raised questions of mixed fact and law, not pure questions of law, and were therefore not appealable under s. 45(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

Alternatively, the Arbitrator's interpretation of the SFA was deemed reasonable.

The application to set aside the award, based on allegations of unfair treatment due to the Arbitrator's procedural rulings, was also dismissed, as the rulings merely determined the scope of an arbitration phase and did not preclude YCC 201 from raising issues later.

The plaintiffs, former residential tenants, sued the landlord and property managers for conversion, alleging wrongful disposal of their personal property following an eviction.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

A proposed intervenor, claiming to be a subtenant, brought a motion for leave to intervene.

The court dismissed the motion to intervene, finding the proposed intervenor lacked credibility and was likely the same person as the plaintiff.

The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the landlord had complied with section 41 of the Residential Tenancies Act regarding abandoned property, which barred the action.

The court also dismissed claims related to swearing false affidavits, noting no such civil cause of action exists.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicants filed human rights applications against their property management company alleging discrimination in housing.

They brought requests for an order during proceedings to consolidate their applications, identify the landlord, add the company's president as an individual respondent, order production of work orders, and extend the time to file a reply.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation request on consent.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the president as a respondent because there were no specific allegations against him and the corporate respondent assumed liability.

The request for production was denied as premature.

The Tribunal granted a 14-day extension to file a reply.

The applicant, a condominium corporation, sought to compel the Director of Titles to register an agreement with a commercial owner involving common elements, land transfers, and altered easements.

The Director of Titles opposed, arguing the condominium board failed to follow the required 80% unit holder vote under section 124 of the Condominium Act, 1998, instead relying on section 107.

The court, exercising its broad discretion under section 134 of the Act, found section 124 was the preferable procedure but regularized the process by deeming prior consents as votes in favour, with conditions for notice to unit holders.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board and requested an adjournment on the day of the hearing, providing a vague medical note via a friend.

The Divisional Court denied the adjournment, noting the note's insufficiency, the tenant's history of rent arrears totaling $52,500, and the prejudice to the landlord.

The court proceeded to dismiss the appeal on its merits, finding no errors of law or jurisdiction by the Board, and awarded $5,000 in costs to the respondent landlord.

The moving party, a self-represented litigant previously declared a vexatious litigant in three separate orders, sought leave to bring a motion to reinstate his appeals after they were dismissed for delay.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the moving party failed to perfect the appeals despite being capable of filing voluminous materials.

The court further held that the underlying appeals were entirely devoid of merit and that the interests of justice would not be served by permitting the matter to proceed.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against the respondent unit owner due to persistent disruptive behaviour by the respondent and her daughter, violating condominium rules and the Condominium Act.

Despite multiple warnings and prior court orders, the respondent failed to appear or address the issues.

The court ordered the respondent to vacate and sell her unit, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the applicant.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add allegations of discrimination by a vocational association and reprisal, and to add the condominium corporation and its board president as respondents.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal denied the amendments regarding vocational association and reprisal, finding no factual or legal basis, but allowed amendments clarifying the existing allegations.

The Tribunal added the condominium corporation as a respondent because its conduct was central to the dispute, but declined to add the board president personally.

The request for a summary hearing was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy because his dog caused or contributed to the landlord's severe allergic reaction.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness, exhibited bias, misapprehended evidence, and made an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's procedures were fair, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the evidence supported the finding that the dog exacerbated the landlord's asthma.

The moving party, a declared vexatious litigant, brought a motion for an extension of time to file a supplementary notice of appeal and for case management directions.

The moving party had improperly combined appeals of three vexatious litigant declarations and a dismissed application into a single notice of appeal without obtaining the required leave for the application appeal.

The Court of Appeal struck the application appeal without prejudice for failing to obtain leave under section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

However, recognizing the moving party's clear intention to appeal the vexatious litigant declarations, the Court granted an extension of time to file separate notices of appeal for those orders.

The request for case management was dismissed.

A condominium unit owner brought an application challenging the termination of her parking space lease, the registration of two condominium liens, and administrative fines imposed by the condominium corporation.

The court found that the condominium corporation improperly terminated the parking lease before the expiry of the notice period and wrongfully registered liens that included amounts not properly lienable under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court further held that bylaw provisions allowing the board to impose arbitrary administrative fees were ultra vires and that the board’s refusal to engage in required mediation and arbitration, along with its conduct toward the owner, constituted oppressive conduct.

However, the applicant failed to prove that most of her alleged damages were causally connected to the misconduct.

The court ordered repayment of amounts paid under the invalid liens and awarded nominal damages for oppression.

In a civil action arising from the plaintiffs’ eviction following an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board and subsequent proceedings in the Divisional Court, the court considered whether the claim against one defendant lawyer should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs alleged the lawyer obtained a Divisional Court order lifting a stay of eviction despite alleged improper service of the motion record.

The court noted that challenges to service in the Divisional Court could have been addressed through remedies available in that court and that suing opposing counsel following successful prior litigation is a common indicator of vexatious proceedings.

The court directed that the plaintiffs be given notice that dismissal of the action against the lawyer was being considered and stayed the action against him pending written submissions.

The appellant, a unit owner and former director of the respondent condominium corporation, appealed a costs order made against him.

The application judge had ordered the appellant to pay $45,000 in costs but failed to clearly determine whether the appellant had acted in bad faith or was merely negligent, which was critical to determining his entitlement to indemnification under the condominium's by-laws.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the costs order, and remitted the matter to the application judge to clarify the findings and reassess the costs.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a parallel civil proceeding in Small Claims Court.

The applicant submitted a court order staying the civil action until she provided certain particulars, arguing this satisfied the requirement.

The Tribunal found that the civil proceeding had not concluded, as the stay order predated the deferral decision and indicated the civil claim was ongoing.

The request to reactivate was dismissed, and the application remained deferred.

The appellant condominium corporation terminated its management agreement with the respondent for cause.

The respondent sued in Small Claims Court for breach of contract, but the trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the respondent's conduct cumulatively amounted to gross negligence or recklessness.

The Divisional Court set aside the trial judgment, holding the reasons were insufficient for appellate review.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the trial judgment, finding the Divisional Court erred by failing to read the reasons in the context of the trial record and the informal nature of the Small Claims Court.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his complaint that the landlord illegally entered his rental unit and invaded his privacy by taking photographs.

The Divisional Court found no error of law, noting the entry was authorized under section 27 of the Residential Tenancies Act for inspection purposes.

The court held that taking photographs during a lawful entry does not inherently infringe privacy rights if done for a proper purpose, such as preparing for an upcoming Board hearing.