Ontario

We have found 727 items matching your search query.

Ontario

Jurisdiction:

Bahadoor v. York Condominium Corp. No. 82 (Superior Court) (February 13, 2007)

Administrator discharged and election of new Board confirmed
Jurisdiction:

York Condominium Corporation No. 382 v. Jay-M Holdings Ltd. (Ontario Court of Appeal)

Limitation period had not expired
Jurisdiction:

Kluwak v. Pasternak (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

Proxy solicitations must not be misleading
Jurisdiction:

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 551 v. Adam (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

Owner’s numerous demands not considered oppressive. Owner not required to disclose reasons for requesting information.
Jurisdiction:

Bahadoor v. York Condominium Corporation No. 82 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

Mandate of administrator suspended
Jurisdiction:

Rita D'Alessandro v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 43 and Fitzsimmons Realty Services Inc.

If a condominium corporation has no standard unit description, none of the units contain any “improvements”
Jurisdiction:

Rogers Cable Communications Inc. v. York Condominium Corp. No. 312

Rogers Agreement does not confer a right of first refusal
Jurisdiction:

York Region Vacant Land Condominium Corporation No. 968 v. Schickedanz Brothers Limited (Ontario Court of Appeal)

In a common elements condominium corporation, a common expense sharing formula that allows potls to avoid contributions until they reach a certain level of development is not oppressive or prejudicial
Jurisdiction:

Sauve v. Paglione (Small Claims Court)

Small claims court properly authorized by Condominium Act to order production of records
Jurisdiction:

York Condominium Corporation No. 136 vs. Roth

Court refuses to order sale of unit of unruly owner
Jurisdiction:

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 562 v. Froom (Ontario Court of Appeal)

Dispute subject to mandatory mediation and arbitration
Jurisdiction:

Little v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 50 (August 15, 2006)

A case about how the reserve fund can be used and about the 2/3 vote required for substantial changes