Yulia Pesin

Following the dismissal of its application to prevent the re-leasing of disputed lands, the applicant condominium corporation argued it should be relieved of costs because the matter was in the public interest and involved consumer protection.

The court rejected these arguments, holding that condominium corporations are subject to the standard costs regime.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondents, declining to award substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted monetary offer to settle because the application sought non-monetary relief.

Costs were fixed at $58,655.44 for two respondents and $35,008.44 for the third.

The applicant, York Condominium Corporation No. 76 (YCC76), sought to invalidate a lease amendment concerning "Disputed Lands" within the Crescent Town development.

YCC76 claimed a leasehold interest in the lands and alleged that the amendment, which released the lands in exchange for $500,000, was improperly approved by the board of Crescent Town Club Inc. (CTC) and constituted oppression.

The court dismissed YCC76's application, finding that YCC76 had no leasehold interest in the Disputed Lands, the board's approval was valid under the Ontario Not For Profit Corporations Act, 2010, and the lease did not require unanimous consent from YCC76.

Furthermore, the court determined it lacked broad jurisdiction to grant an oppression remedy under the ONCA, and even if it did, YCC76 failed to prove oppression or actual prejudice.

The applicant brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a request for records.

The parties acknowledged that the requested records were provided and agreed to settle the case in Stage 2 (Mediation) through the online dispute resolution system.

Pursuant to Rule 34.3(c) of the CAT's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal ordered the case closed.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, sought an order prohibiting their neighbours from smoking inside and outside their unit, alleging the smoke migration constituted a nuisance.

They also sought an order compelling the condominium corporation to enforce its governing documents.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the condominium corporation had taken reasonable steps to investigate and mitigate the smoke migration, including retaining engineers and completing sealing work.

The Tribunal concluded that the remaining smoke did not constitute an unreasonable nuisance under the Condominium Act, as smoking was not prohibited by the corporation's rules.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant brought a nuisance application against a tenant occupier.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal closed the case due to inactivity for more than 30 days.

The applicant filed a motion to reopen the case, which was supported by the intervenor condominium corporation.

Applying the factors from Frey v. MacDonald, the Tribunal granted the motion, finding minimal prejudice to the parties and noting that requiring a new application would result in increased time and costs.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' defamation action under Rule 21.01(1)(a).

The underlying action involved alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant, a condominium unit owner and former board president, about the developer.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the defence of privilege involved mixed fact and law requiring a complete factual record.

Following the dismissal of a Rule 21 motion seeking to strike a defamation action, the court determined the appropriate costs order.

The moving party had attempted to use Rule 21 to establish that a defence of privilege would succeed, which the court previously held to be an improper use of the rule.

The successful plaintiffs sought costs payable immediately under Rule 57.03(1), while the moving party requested costs in the cause on the basis that the defence might ultimately succeed at trial.

The court held that the motion represented a procedural misstep but that fairness required a moderated approach.

Costs of $24,187.37 were awarded to the plaintiffs in any event of the cause.