3 total
Condominium corporation granted compliance order against disruptive tenant despite pending Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings.
The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion for a compliance order against a tenant and the unit owners, due to over 200 complaints and 60 police visits regarding the tenant's disruptive and threatening behaviour.
The tenant sought a stay pending the outcome of eviction applications before the Landlord and Tenant Board.
The court dismissed the stay request, noting the condominium corporation's independent statutory duty to enforce compliance, and granted the order requiring the tenant to cease the non-compliant behaviour, with leave for the applicant to seek eviction if the behaviour continues.
Costs of $60,000 awarded to the successful respondent following the dismissal of an injunction motion.
The respondent was entirely successful in defending an injunction motion and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The applicants argued that costs should be deferred to the judge hearing the balance of the application.
The court declined to defer costs, noting the uncertainty of the application proceeding.
While the court found the applicants' conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs, it noted their improper conduct in splitting their case and unnecessarily complicating the motion.
The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $60,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.
Motion for injunction to prevent eviction from condominium Visitor Centre dismissed as damages are adequate.
The applicants, who were the developer and manager of the respondent condominium corporation, sought an interlocutory or permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from evicting them from a Visitor Centre they leased.
The respondent had terminated the management agreements and the lease following a breakdown in the relationship.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the termination of the agreements, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience strongly favoured the respondent, which needed the Visitor Centre to manage the property.
