Condo Law Digest – June 2018

Simcoe SCC Nos. 431 & 434 v. Atkins, 2018 ONSC 3105
Decision Date: May 22, 2018
Link to text of decision

This is a dispute about some procedural issues related to a meeting of the owners of units in Simcoe SCC Nos. 431 & 434. The applicants argue that Mr. Atkins, a unit owner, has provided misleading information to other owners in the past, in attempts to discredit the current Boards of Directors. (By way of background, common expense charges for owners recently doubled, and the corporations are suing their developers in relation to first year budget statements.)

Everyone agrees that a meeting of the owners should be held. They disagree as to whether:

1) Owners may use proxies to vote;
2) The court should regulate Mr. Atkins’ communication with the owners before the meeting;
3) The court should make orders regulating the conduct of the meeting.

Justice Copeland ruled as follows:

1) While some of Mr. Atkins’ communications to owners were “unconstructive,” “mean-spirited,” and contained personal insults, this does not warrant preventing the use of proxies.
2) The corporations ask that, prior to the meeting, there be one (and only one) mailing sent to owners. It would enclose submissions from each side of the debate, and the content would be vetted by the lawyers for both parties. The reason given for this request was Mr. Atkins’ previous “misleading” communications with owners. Justice Copeland declined to make this order, saying it would be inconsistent with the democratic model laid out in the Condominium Act.
3) The parties have agreed that an independent person conduct the meeting, and they have even agreed who that person should be. Justice Copeland agreed to make an order for that individual to conduct the meeting, but declined to further manage the conduct of the meeting, leaving it to the chosen individual.

Comment: Justice Copeland closed with some stirring words on the importance of civil, open, and calm discussion in condominium communities, and an order for costs of $14,000 on a partial indemnity basis against Simcoe SCC Nos. 431 & 434. She declined to order costs against the directors personally.

About the image: By Ryan Somma from Occoquan, USA – Rally to Restore Sanity: What Do We Want? A Civil and Rationally Compelling Discussion of the Facts!, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=64269180

Condo Law Digest – May 2018

Wavy fence and a wall BW version.jpg

Omotayo v. Da Costa, 2018 ONSC 2187
Decision Date: March 29, 2018
http://canlii.ca/t/hrb84

The cases arises from a contentious board meeting of Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1292 in September 2011. Ms. Omotayo had recently been removed from her position as Chair and Mr. Da Costa had sent the Board a letter advising that he wished to resign as President. Nevertheless, both showed up at the meeting and began to argue with one another. Mr. Da Costa “lost it” (in his words) and struck Ms. Omotayo on the head with a chair. The police were called, and Mr. Da Costa was charged with three offenses. Ms. Omotayo made a claim against Mr. Da Costa and against MTCC 1292 for failing to protect her from the assault. Mr. Da Costa filed a cross-claim against MTCC 1292 for contribution and indemnity.

In this proceeding, MTCC 1292 has brought a claim for summary judgment to dismiss Ms. Omotayo’s claim. (Ms. Omotayo did not oppose the motion. She settled her claim with MTCC 1292 prior to this hearing. However Mr. Da Costa opposed the motion for summary judgment, and so the hearing went ahead.) Justice Nishikawa granted the motion for summary judgment, saying that MTCC No. 1292 did not breach a duty of care to Ms. Omotayo, as the corporation could reasonably expect board members to refrain from assaulting one another.

Comment: Costs of $6500 were payable by Mr. Da Costa to MTCC 1292. Here’s hoping that the current configuration of the Board manages to hold calmer meetings.

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2256 v. Paluszkiewicz, 2018 ONSC 2329
Decision Date: April 12, 2018
http://canlii.ca/t/hrg2w

This is an appeal of an arbitration award. TSCC No. 2256 is a small condominium with four units. Mr. & Mrs. Paluszkiewicz were among the first owners. In October 2012 they delivered a renovation proposal with two preliminary drawings to the Board, and a month later they entered into a Section 98 Agreement to do the renovations. About one year later a new Board was convened. In March 2014 the Corporation notified the Paluszkiewiczs that their renovations did not comply with the Section 98 Agreement. Mediation failed, and in June 2015 the parties began arbitration.

The Paluszkiewiczs submitted that they had provided detailed construction drawings to the old Board in November 2012, and that the now-completed renovations matched these drawings. The Corporation argued that the meeting of Mr. Paluszkiewicz and the old Board to approve the drawings had not taken place. Gerry Caplan, the arbitrator, found in favour of the Paluszkiewiczs and ordered the Corporation to pay them $216,000 in costs.

In September 2017 the Corporation asked the arbitrator to set aside the award on the grounds that the Paluszkiewiczs had committed fraud. The Corporation produced a sworn affidavit from the old Board members stating that they did not discuss building plans with Mr. Paluszkiewicz. Mr. Caplan declined to set aside his award, and TSCC No. 2256 made this appeal. Justice Perell dismissed the application. Just because two parties have different memories of an event, he reasoned, it does not follow that one of the parties is lying or has committed fraud.

Comment: While no costs decision was issued for this appeal, that old warning against “throwing good money after bad” keeps running through my head.

Furr v. Duhamel, 2018 ONSC 1780
Decision Date: April 4, 2018
http://canlii.ca/t/hrbqm

This is a dispute between owners of a unit in “King’s Landing,” a townhouse development in Ottawa, and the Co-Tenancy Committee that manages shared property and expenses. (Just to be clear, the development is not a condominium corporation.) The main issue concerns the fence along the eastern boundary of the property. The applicants argue that the as-built fence and retaining wall are not included as shared property in the Co-Tenancy Agreement, and therefore maintenance of the fence is not a shared expense. In effect, by treating the fence as shared property, the Committee is favouring the owners whose property is adjacent to the fence (and who alone should bear the expense of repairing it.) They also allege bad faith on the part of the Committee. The Committee maintain that they have always acted in good faith and relied upon legal advice.

Justice Beaudoin found that the specific section of the Co-Tenancy Agreement that refers to the fence was ambiguous. However, reading the Agreement as a whole, together with other relevant documents, it is clear that the intention of the Agreement was for the fence to be treated as shared property. He also found the allegations of bad faith to be without merit.

Comment: Some passages of the decision indicate a long and acrimonious dispute. (“The Applicants declined offers to sit on the Committee and preferred to engage in a campaign against the Committee members that led the community to eventually vote for, and approve, policies on requests for information and against harassment.”) No decision yet on costs.

About the image: By W.carterOwn work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Conflict Resolution Tip #1

conflict resolution tip 1

Last month, I was fortunate to spend some time in Shanghai.

One of the things I learned there is that “road rage” is virtually unknown.

I was told that, for a Chinese person to lose control in this way would be a humiliating loss of face.

Let’s keep in mind that our response to difficult situations is within our control.

About the image: Night on West Nanjing Road, Shanghai

Condo Law Digest – April 2018

2009 windowbox London 3479978387.jpg

Sennek v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 116, 2018
Decision Date: March 22, 2018
http://canlii.ca/t/hr686

This is an involved costs decision regarding legal proceedings between Manorama Sennek and Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 116. Laurentian Bank Company, Ms Sennek’s mortgage holder, was granted intervenor status. The purpose of this hearing was to determine 1) the amount of costs owing by Ms Sennek; and 2) whether and to what extent the costs could be added to the common expenses of her unit and recoverable by lien. (This is important, because it would mean that the condominium corporation would have priority over the bank in recovering monies. The mortgage principal is about $141,000.)

Last year Ms Sennek was declared a Vexatious Litigant. The legal wrangling between her and CCC No. 16 started with small claims court actions over tree pruning, the size of the parking spot accompanying her unit, and a flowerbox she installed that did not comply with the condominium’s bylaws. The original lien, registered in 2015, was for the costs of removing the flowerbox – around $760. It was open to the Laurentian Bank to pay that amount (plus legal fees) to have the lien discharged. They chose not to do this. The litigation “spun wildly out of control” and CCC No. 116 had to spend a great deal of money to respond to the “voluminous” materials Ms Sennek submitted. In this decision, Justice Sheard discusses Bills of Costs for five different motions and hearings, in addition to the costs for the Vexatious Litigant application and the original small claims court hearing. Based on her analyses, she awarded costs of nearly $110,00 to CCC No. 116, with about $85,000 recoverable by lien under the Condominium Act.

Comment: The Laurentian Bank submits, “that it had no expectation or reason to fear that the costs related to the removal of a flower box could escalate to over $100,000.00.” Quite.

Lahrkamp v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 932
Decision Date: March 16, 2018
http://canlii.ca/t/hr1pm

This is another decision relating to costs. Mr. Lahrkamp sought leave to appeal the costs decision against him of just over $21,000. These costs arose in a small claims court matter that both parties agree was worth $1500. Mr. Lahrkamp argued that the Deputy Judge Prattas failed to consider the principle of proportionality in awarding costs. However Justice Sachs denied the appeal, saying that the Deputy Judge made very clear that Mr. Lahrkamp had behaved unreasonably during the proceedings, which entitled him to make an award exceeding the limits for costs in the Small Claims Court.

Comment: Earlier this year Mr. Lahrkamp was declared a Vexatious Litigant.

Brief Notice

Since beginning this blog, I have come across many decisions regarding Dewan v. Burdet – a complex case with many parties, stretching back over 20 years. I have always quailed at summarizing any of them. In what may (finally) be close to the end of the line, the Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the order of Justice Kane, granted the “minority” owners leave to appeal the costs order, and allowed their cross-appeal on costs.

About the image: By MichaelFLOWERBOX REGENT’S CANAL, CC BY 2.0, Link

Condo Law Digest – March 2018

CommercialAppealLobby.JPG

Scicluna v. Solstice Two Limited, 2018 ONCA 176
Decision Kate: February 23, 2018
http://canlii.ca/t/hqktm

This is an appeal by two parties against the decision made by Justice Brown in Scicluna v Solstice. Ms. Scicluna agreed to purchase a condominium from Solstice Two and advanced just over $293,000. She lost her job and was unable to pay the remaining $78,000. At first, Solstice Two agreed to return to Ms. Scicluna all of the money she had advanced, less $30,000, provided that the condominium was resold. It was indeed resold (for $435,000). However Ms. Scicluna refused to sign the release document, mistakenly believing that Solstice would keep $60,000 rather than $30,000. She commenced a claim, and in response Solstice invoked the forfeiture provision in their original agreement, demanding to retain every cent that Ms. Scicluna had paid. Justice Brown granted Ms. Scicluna relief from forfeiture but instead of giving the money to Ms. Scicluna, she gave it to Ms. Scicluna’s trustee in bankruptcy, Keven Thatcher and Associates (KTL).

In this action, Ms. Scicluna argues that Justice Brown erred in giving the money to KTL, and Solstice argues that Ms. Scicluna should not have been granted relief from forfeiture. The appeal judges upheld Justice Brown’s decision. Regarding the claim by Solstice, it would be a “grossly disproportionate windfall” for them to retain the full amount paid by Ms. Scicluna. Regarding Ms. Scicluna’s appeal, she did not fully disclose to KTL her claim to the deposit on the condo, or her lawsuits against Solstice. It would not advance the principles of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for her to retain the funds.

Comment: Costs of $5000 each from Ms. Scicluna and Solstice were granted to KTL. The trial judge had declined to order costs, saying that the matter should have settled. (For anyone keeping track, there has now been a full trial and an appeal over a matter that “should have settled.”)

Axess Law Professional Corporation v. Sood
Decision Date: February 1, 2018
http://canlii.ca/t/hq5ln

This is an appeal of a small claims court decision. Mr. Sood purchased a condominium in 2015 and was represented in the transaction by Axess. Two different taxes were due on the purchase: Ontario Land Transfer Tax and Municipal Land Transfer Tax. As it happened, on the very day that Mr. Sood’s transaction closed, an automatic software update in the system at Axess introduced an additional step in order to have both taxes included on the Trust Ledger Statement. When the transaction closed, the Transfer document included both taxes, but Axess never received the funds for the Municipal Transfer tax from Mr. Sood. Instead the funds were automatically paid out to the tax authority from the law firm’s own accounts.

Three months later, when Axess noticed the error, they requested payment from Mr. Sood. He refused, and Axess commenced a small claims court action. Mr. Sood’s appeal relies on Subsection 2(1) of the Solicitor’s Act. The legal arguments turned on whether or not the tax payment should be considered a “disbursement.” In the end, Justice Matheson denied the appeal.

Comment: Liability for tax goes to the purchaser, not their lawyers.

Brief Notices

An appeal has been denied in White Snow and Sunshine Holdings Inc. v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 561. Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent. I summarized this dispute over access to condominium amenities in September 2017.

Manorama Sennek’s appeal from the judgment declaring her to be a “vexatious litigant” has been dismissed. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 116 has spent “well over” $100,000 on disputes with her.

About the image: Lobby of the Old Commercial Appeal Building, Memphis, 1961 by ZeamaysOwn work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Condo Law Digest – February 2018

Rosario under construction.jpgJones v. 2341464 Ontario Inc., 2018 ONSC 717
Decision Date: January 30, 2018
http://canlii.ca/t/hq4hm

In May 2013 the parties entered into an agreement of purchase and sale. The applicants were to purchase a pre-construction unit in a building on Niagara Street for $649,000. The occupancy date was to be on or before September 1, 2014. In May 2013 the occupancy date was moved to no later than February 1, 2015. Construction did not actually begin until May 2016. In February 2017 the applicants were advised of some changes to the layout of the condominium units, including the removal of balconies. The applicants decided to proceed with the purchase despite these changes. Later the same month the defendant contacted the respondents and advised them that, due to the delays and to costs they had incurred in the planning process, they would no longer honour the purchase and sale agreement. The new price (on which the applicants had “first right of refusal”) was to be $875,000.

Justice Favreau found the original agreement of purchase and sale to be valid and enforceable. He made an order of specific performance granting the applicants occupancy of their unit within 30 days, and also awarded them $20,000 in costs.

Comment: Justice Favreau said that it was “evident” that the respondents were reluctant to complete the sale so they could benefit from an increase in the value of real estate since the agreement was made.

Toronto Condominium Corp. 1462 v. Dangubic, 2018 ONSC 491
Decision Date: January 19, 2018
http://canlii.ca/t/hpvh1

Mr. Dangubic owns a unit in TSCC No. 1462. Justice Morgan describes him as “not a good neighbor,” as he has violated other residents’ rights of quiet enjoyment, has gotten into verbal conflicts with others, and has left obscene and aggressive voice messages. TSCC charges that he owes over $14,000 in common expenses; these consist mainly of the legal cost of compliance letters and of a lien, and costs of attempted collection of arrears. The main legal issue at stake is whether the lien registered by TSCC 1462 is valid.

Justice Morgan ruled that the lien was indeed valid, as Mr. Dangubic was aware of the claim against him, knew the circumstances of why and how fees were incurred, and the fees are reasonable for the legal work done. He granted TSCC 1462’s request for summary judgment and also granted them costs on a substantial indemnity basis of over $16,000.

Comment: Disruptive owners should understand that the legal cost of getting them to comply with the corporation’s rules will not be borne by the owners at large.

About the image: Building under construction in Rosario, Argentina, which like Toronto is experiencing a construction boom. CC BY-SA 2.5, Link

Condo Law Digest – January 2018

Déneigement westmount.jpg

C.M. Callow Inc. v. Tammy Zollinger et al., 2017 ONSC 7095
Decision Date: November 27, 2017
http://canlii.ca/t/hp00r

C.M. Callow Inc. is a property maintenance company that provided winter and summer maintenance at a condominium complex in Ottawa, managed by the Condominium Management Group (CMG). CMG terminated the two-year winter maintenance contract with Callow earlier than expected, while Ms. Zollinger was property manager. The issues in this trial were whether CMG was in breach of contract, and if so, what are Callow’s damages?

Callow’s position is that the CMG decided to terminate the winter maintenance contract in March 2013 but did not advise him until Sept 3013. Between March and September, while Callow was fulfilling the summer maintenance contract, Ms. Zollinger and certain board members falsely represented that the winter maintenance contract would be renewed or extended. During this time, Callow provided extra “freebie” services to enhance the property, as an incentive to CMG to renew the two-year contract.

CMG’s position is that Callow’s winter maintenance work did not meet their expectations, and that they were within their rights to terminate the contract with 10-days notice, and they did not falsely represent nor act in bad faith.

This case hinged primarily on two things: the evidence (including emails exchanged among board members and the parties’ credibility), and some fundamental principles of common law contracts. Justice O’Bonsawin favoured the evidence provided by Callow, saying that witnesses for the defendant were prone to exaggeration and answered questions in ways that were at odds with the written record. She found no evidence that Callow’s work was below standard. Furthermore, parties to a contract have a duty to act honestly in their dealings and not seek to undermine the other’s interests in bad faith. CMG actively deceived Callow by not disclosing their intention to terminate the contract. Justice O’Bonsawin awarded damages of just over $80,000 (the value of the contract after expenses and the value of equipment leased in anticipation of fulfilling the contract) to Callow.

Comment: Speak with a lawyer before breaking a contract, no matter how reasonable you believe your position to be.

About the image: Snow removal in Westmount (Montreal) Canada in 1944 by Conrad PoirierThis image is available from Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec
Public Domain, Link

Condo Law Digest – December 2017

One Canada Square, Canary Wharf.jpg

TSCC No. 1556 and No. 1600 v. Owners of TSCC No. 1556, et al., 2017 ONSC 6542
Decision Date: November 2, 2017
http://canlii.ca/t/hn83r

TSCC No’s 1556 and 1600 are condominium corporations developed by Tridel Co. Their declarations include provisions permitting short-term rentals. (DelSuites, a company that provides short-term rentals and is part of the Tridel Group of Companies, manages units in both condominiums.) In this action, the corporations seek to prohibit short-term rentals by eliminating the provisions in the declarations that permit them. There have been no complaints regarding the rentals, however the corporations argue that AirBnB has changed the nature of the short-term rental market, and they seek to prevent future problems.

Justice Akbarali denied the application, reasoning that the declarations were not inconsistent with the Condominium Act, the relevant municipal zoning by-law, or the restrictive covenant registered on title to the lands on which the corporations sit. If the corporations want to amend their declarations, they will have to follow the provisions laid out in s. 107 of the Condominium Act (which specifies that 80% of unit owners must agree to the changes).

Comment: If you are purchasing a condominium unit and feel strongly for or against short-term rentals, make sure to have the declaration reviewed by a lawyer who specializes in condo law.

Peel Condo Corp 166 v. Ohri, 2017 ONSC 6438
Decision Date: October 26, 2017
http://canlii.ca/t/hmt8h

In this application, PCC No. 166 seeks a declaration that Mr. Ohri is in breach of the Condominium Act, and of the corporation’s Declaration and Rules. They seek an order requiring him to comply, and acknowledge that one of their purposes in seeking the order is to allow them to request he be removed from the Condominium, should he not comply. The conflict between the Board and Mr. Ohri dates to 1) a January 2016 altercation in the parking garage between Mr. Ohri and two Board members; and 2) an election of the Board of Directors in February 2016. Mr. Ohri supported his friend, a Mr. Singh. The Board posted a notice implying that residents should not vote for Mr. Singh. Mr. Singh lost the election by 9-10 votes when 20 votes against him were disqualified, based on Mr. Ohri’s alleged intimidation of unit owners into providing proxies. Mr. Singh sold his unit and moved out of the condominium.

Justice Price dismissed the application, finding the complaints against Mr. Ohri unfounded. Mr. Ohri has no history of violence, the police did not charge him, and video footage of two incidents from the surveillance camera were ambiguous as to who started things. Mr. Ohri was also able to provide a statement attesting to his good character signed by 15 residents of the building. Justice Price declined to order Mr. Ohri to comply with the Condominium Act, etc., saying that judges don’t generally order people to comply with the law.

Comment From Justice Price: “The court must be vigilant, especially in the context of a Board election in a condominium corporation, to ensure that its process is not manipulated by Board members who seek to maintain political control within the condominium by seeking a venue in which the condominium’s superior legal resources, and the indemnification terms of its rules, give it a significant advantage in a contest with a Unit owner.”

Pollock v. Wilson, 2017 HRTO 1476
Decision Date: November 8, 2017
http://canlii.ca/t/hnqvf

The applicant, Ms Pollock, is diabetic and relies on a service dog trained to recognize low blood sugar levels. Ms Wilson is her across-the-hall neighbor in a condominium. On Ms. Pollock’s door there is a sign alerting EMS personnel that there is a service dog in the unit. Ms. Wilson complained to the property manager about the sign, saying that such signs “serve to lower the tone of the building.” The property manager asked Ms. Pollock to remove the sign. (Apparently other signs, such as one proclaiming “World’s Best Grandma” were not similarly targeted.) In response, Ms. Pollock pasted additional notices and signs about disability and service dogs on her door. Condominium staff removed these notices; Ms. Pollock re-posted them. Finally, after speaking with a police officer, the property manager agreed that Ms. Pollock could continue to display the “service dog” sign. There was some additional back-and-forth among the two women, the building staff and the condominium board, about various issues related to the dog.

Ms Pollock filed a complaint against Ms Wilson with the Human Rights Tribunal. The adjudicator found that Ms Wilson’s complaints about the door created a poisoned environment for Ms Pollock and subjected her to adverse treatment. Ms Wilson was ordered to pay Ms Pollock $200 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

About the image: One Canada Square at London, Docklands. By Garry KnightFlickr: 4:06 PM, CC BY-SA 2.0, Link

City of Toronto Mediation Pilot Program

Toronto sign (34289773236)

Over the past year my company has been on the roster for the City of Toronto’s Mediation Pilot Program. We attend selected meetings of the Committee of Adjustment and help neighbours work through their difficulties related to planning issues. I’ve become familiar with GFA (“gross floor area”) measurements, side-yard set-backs, and the profound love for and desire to protect trees shared by many of the city’s residents. The mediators in the program are always assigned to work with an independent planner. Leah Birnbaum, one of the planners on the roster, has written an article about her experiences with the program.

About the image: By Sebastiaan ter Burg from Utrecht, The Netherlands (Toronto sign) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Condo Law Digest – November 2017

Basketball court with puddles after a rainstorm, 2014 09 21

Weir v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 485, 2017 ONSC 6265
Decision Date: October 20, 2017
http://canlii.ca/t/hmnjf

Ms Weir is the owner of a penthouse unit in PCC No. 485. In June 2015 she noticed water pooling on the floor of her solarium during heavy rainfall from the southeast. The problem continued for about two years. Ms Weir was unable to use her solarium and hesitated to spend time away from her unit during rainstorms. (I will not summarize the two years of investigations, attempted repairs, and back-and-forth communication among property managers, the board, engineers for both parties, and several lawyers.)

In this action, Ms Weir claims that PCC No. 485 1) failed to meet its duty to maintain common elements; 2) entered her unit unlawfully; 3) levied arbitrary penalty fees; and 4) attacked her credibility. PCC No. 485 denies that its conduct was oppressive. Justice Petersen agreed and dismissed the application for the following reasons: 1) While the Corporation’s first response to the problem was “far from diligent” they did ultimately respond appropriately to what all agree was a problem with no obvious solution. 2) Although the Corporation did make one unlawful entry to Ms. Weir’s unit, a single incident does not amount to oppressive conduct. 3) Given that Ms. Weir retained counsel and commenced litigation while the Corporation was trying to discover the source of the leaks, it was not unreasonable for the Corporation to seek indemnification for its actual legal costs. (This was a “strong-arm tactic,” but permitted by the Condominium Act). 4) The Corporation’s expressed suspicion that Ms. Weir was responsible for the water leakage because she failed to seal the outside sliders on her windows was not evidence of harsh or vindictive conduct – especially as they continued to investigate the source of the leaks.

Comment: By mutual agreement, the parties did not pursue mediation.

Wexler v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 28, 2017 ONSC 5697
Decision Date: Sept 25, 2017
http://canlii.ca/t/h6g9f

Ms Wexler sued CCC No. 28 in small claims court for about $2500. (I don’t have the details.) She was not successful, and the judge awarded the defendant costs in the amount of $20,000. Ms Wexler appealed the costs award. In this decision, Justice O’Bonsawin set aside the small claims court cost decision and instead ordered her to pay costs in the amount of 15% of her original claim (so about $375).

Comment: I’m curious as to whether the parties attempted mediation, and if not why not. While I don’t know the details of Ms Wexler’s claim, spending $20K to defend a $2500 claim does not seem like a good business decision.

Keele Medical Properties Ltd. v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1786, 2017 ONSC 6137
Decision Date: October 16, 2017
http://canlii.ca/t/h7234

This is a decision on costs following from a March 2017 decision regarding a condominium lien of about $243,000. [http://canlii.ca/t/h35m3] At that time, Justice Chiappetta found that the lien was valid and enforceable. TSCC No. 1786 asked for costs of about $164,000 on a full indemnity basis. Both parties made offers to settle before the trial. Chiappetta found that it was “fair and reasonable” for TSCC No. 1786 to seek full indemnity costs, and that the time and hourly rate were likewise reasonable.

About the Image: Basketball court with puddles after a rainstorm, 2014 09 21 by booledozer [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons