Victor J. Yee

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitration award interpreting a Condominium Services Agreement (CSA) between a condominium corporation and a service provider.

The arbitrator had ruled that the CSA permitted the service provider to include profit in fee increases during the COVID-19 pandemic when services were curtailed.

The applicant argued the arbitrator erred by allowing the factual matrix to overwhelm the contract language, failing to construe the contract as a whole, and relying on subjective intentions.

The court granted leave to appeal on these extricable questions of law but dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The court also rejected allegations of bias.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a compliance order against a unit owner for alleged hoarding, denial of entry to service personnel, and an inoperable vehicle in her parking spot.

The court found that the respondent had engaged in hoarding behavior and unreasonably denied entry on several occasions, and that her car was unsightly and inoperable.

A compliance order was granted, allowing the corporation entry with notice, requiring the respondent to rectify hazards, and to restore or remove her vehicle.

However, the order was narrower than sought by the applicant, with longer notice periods and an obligation for the applicant's personnel to accommodate the respondent's health concerns.

The court declined to award costs to either party, citing divided success and the applicant's excessive allegations.

A dispute between a condominium unit owner (Rahman) and the condominium corporation (PSCC No. 779) regarding accessible parking and alleged discrimination escalated into multiple legal proceedings.

In this action, Rahman moved for summary judgment, while the Corporation cross-moved to strike his claim as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, or alternatively, to stay the action pending other proceedings.

The court dismissed the Corporation's motion to strike but granted its motion to stay the action, rendering Rahman's summary judgment motion moot.

The court criticized the Corporation's aggressive litigation approach and Rahman's intemperate conduct, declining to award costs to the Corporation despite its partial success.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application seeking two orders regarding an upcoming Annual General Meeting: (1) the appointment of a neutral chair for the meeting, and (2) a ruling that the respondent condominium corporation's requirement for owners to obtain physical proxy forms from the condominium office (rather than downloading them) was unlawful.

The applicant's principal was running for election on a platform to repeal a special assessment.

The court dismissed the application, finding no proven serious risk of illegality or harm to warrant a neutral chair, and that the requirement for physical proxy forms, while potentially inconvenient, did not constitute oppression or a clear statutory/regulatory non-compliance issue, especially given the corporation's security concerns.

The court emphasized that the application was premature, as any issues could be addressed after the meeting with a full factual matrix.

The plaintiff condominium corporation moved for summary judgment against the defendants for common expense arrears, an unauthorized cheque, and declarations of oppression and breach of director's duty.

The defendants counterclaimed for oppression and raised a limitations defense.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning witness credibility and the informal operation of the Board.

The court also noted that partial summary judgment was inappropriate due to the risk of duplicative and inconsistent findings given the shared factual background.

The Applicant sought costs for an application to enforce a Condominium Authority Tribunal order requiring the Respondent condominium corporation to produce records.

Although the Respondent eventually complied with the record production, it did so four months late.

The court found the Applicant was entitled to costs, rejecting the Respondent's arguments based on late compliance and an invalid offer to settle.

Costs were awarded on a full indemnity basis for the period of non-compliance (up to August 1, 2019) and on a partial indemnity basis thereafter, totaling $14,716.91.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion to transfer a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court of Justice.

The court previously ordered that the Defendants were entitled to costs thrown away from the Small Claims action.

In this endorsement, the court fixed the Defendants' costs thrown away at $4,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The Plaintiff, who was successful in the transfer motion, was also awarded costs of the transfer motion, fixed at $4,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court ordered that these amounts be set off against each other, resulting in no net payment.

The court rejected the Plaintiff's argument for full indemnity costs for the procedural transfer motion, clarifying that such a higher scale for condominium corporations typically applies to collection-related costs after a trial on the merits.

This application concerned a commercial condominium owner's right to exercise an easement granted by a neighbouring condominium corporation for the installation of utilities.

The respondent condominium corporation argued that the applicant, by virtue of owning parking units within its complex, was an 'owner' subject to Section 98 of the Condominium Act, requiring board approval and a formal agreement for alterations to common elements.

The court determined that the applicant was not an 'owner' of the respondent for the purposes of exercising the easement rights related to its commercial unit in the adjacent condominium, and therefore Section 98 did not apply.

The court also found the applicant was a beneficiary of the easement and that a shared facilities agreement did not apply to the proposed work.