Ontario

We have found 738 items matching your search query.

Ontario

Jurisdiction:

Halton Standard Condominium Corp. No. 627 v. Grandview Living Inc. (Ontario Superior Court)

Termination of agreement entered into by developer-controlled Board was a change to the common elements requiring a vote of owners
Jurisdiction:

Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 22 v. MacQuarrie (Ontario Superior Court)

Court awards reduced costs to condominium corporation
Jurisdiction:

Trez v. Wynford (Ontario Superior Court)

Condominium corporation has no right to an equitable lien
Jurisdiction:

3716724 Canada Inc. v. CCC No. 375 (Ontario Superior Court)

Court orders condominium corporation to consent to owner’s requested change to common elements
Jurisdiction:

Couture v. TSCC No. 2187 (Ontario Superior Court)

Parking dispute results in finding of oppression against condominium corporation
Jurisdiction:

MTCC No. 985 v. Cheney (Ontario Superior Court)

Condominium corporation completed reasonable repairs to address smoke migration
Jurisdiction:

Seto v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 492 (Ontario Superior Court)

Condominium corporation did not properly allocate common expenses; however, there was no oppression. Corporation also failed to enforce Declaration
Jurisdiction:

Chen v. Del Property Management Inc. (Ontario Human Rights Tribunal)

Owner asserts human rights complaint in relation to alleged excessive noise from unit above. Claim dismissed
Jurisdiction:

Ram v. Talon International Inc. (Ontario Superior Court)

Forty percent increase in declarant’s budgeted common expenses may constitute a material change entitling purchaser to cancel transaction
Jurisdiction:

2384125 Ontario Inc. v. The Diamond at Don Mills Developments Inc. (Ontario Superior Court)

Court refuses request for Mareva injunction to restrain declarant’s disposition of assets
Jurisdiction:

Mazzilli v. Middlesex Standard Condominium Corporation No. 823 (Ontario Superior Court)

Various common element projects fell within the board’s repair and maintenance mandate; owner involvement not necessary