Ontario
We have found 698 items matching your search query.
Ontario
Jurisdiction: Ontario 2006 Part 15 - 01/08/2006
Boland v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada (Ontario)
No coverage under Directors and Officers Liability Insurance policy
Jurisdiction: Ontario 2006 Part 14 - 01/05/2006
Strata Plan LMS 307 v. Krusozki
Sale of Strata Lot properly authorized
Jurisdiction: Ontario 2006
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 678 v. First Royal Management Inc.
Dispute respecting the sharing of costs related to a shared parking garage
Jurisdiction: Ontario 2006
Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 78 v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation Nos. 50, 52, 53, 56, 59, 63 and 64 - Superior Court Decision
Shared facilities committee has authority to make most decisions respecting shared facilities
Jurisdiction: Ontario 2006
Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 668 v. Dayspring Phase I Ltd.
Condo loan approved
Jurisdiction: Ontario 2006 Part 13 - 01/02/2006
York Condominium Corporation No. 382 v. Jay-M Holdings Ltd.
Court rules that fifteen-year ultimate limited period has expired
Jurisdiction: Ontario 2006 Part 14 - 01/05/2006
Niagara North Condominium Corporation No. 125 v. Waddington [(See Condo Cases Across Canada, Part 13 (February 2006)]
Going to the Court of Appeal
In this case, both the landlord of a unit and the condominium corporation had been unsuccessful in their attempts to enforce a “No-Pets” provision in the condominium corporation’s declaration. The condominium corporation has appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The appeal is scheduled to be heard in the Fall of 2006.
Niagara North Condominium Corporation No. 125 v. Waddington.pdf
Jurisdiction: Ontario 2006 Part 13 - 01/02/2006
Niagara North Condominium Corporation No. 125 v. Waddington
After landlord unsuccessful in attempt to enforce “no-pets” provision in declaration, condominium corporation was denied right to bring its own application against tenant
Jurisdiction: Ontario 2005 Part 13 - 01/02/2006
York Region Condominium Corporation No. 968 v. Schickendanz Bros. Ltd.
Clause purporting to delay common expenses not valid
Jurisdiction: Ontario 2005 Part 13 - 01/02/2006
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 949 v. Staib [Ontario Court of Appeal]
“No pets” provision in declaration not enforced where condominium corporation has been too slow in taking enforcement action
Jurisdiction: Ontario 2005 Part 14 - 01/05/2006
Metropolitan Condominium Corporation No. 949 v. Staib [See Condo Cases Across Canada, Part 13 (February 2006)] (November 25, 2005 Ontario Court of Appeal)
Supreme Court of Canada refuses leave to appeal
In this case, the Trial Court had declined to enforce a “No Pets” provision in a declaration in circumstances where the condominium corporation was deemed have been aware of the presence of a cat in a unit, but was too slow in taking steps to require the cat’s removal. The decision was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The condominium corporation then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court of Canada in April 2006, with costs awarded to the owner.
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 949 v. Staib (Appeal).pdf