Ontario

We have found 698 items matching your search query.

Ontario

Jurisdiction:

Amoah v. York Condominium Corp. No. 42

Corporation’s lien rights confirmed
Jurisdiction:

Lewis v. Cantertrot Investment Ltd.

Class action by condominium purchasers
Jurisdiction:

Eva Osvath v. C.C.C. No. 237 et al. ((Divisional Court)

Extension of Appeal Period denied
Jurisdiction:

Citywide Lawn Care Ltd. v. London Condo Corp.

No fundamental breach of snow removal contract
Jurisdiction:

Peel Condominium Corp. No. 33 v. Johnson

Mediation and Arbitration did not apply to dispute about door colour
Jurisdiction:

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 545 v. Beulah Stein, David Stein, Suzanne Drucker and Syed Rizwan Warsi

Court deal with corporation’s right to carry out repair or maintenance on behalf of owners
Jurisdiction:

St. Louis-Lalonde v. Carleton Condominium Corp. No. 12

Condominium Corporation not negligent
Jurisdiction:

Atkinson v. TWS Developments Inc.

Purchaser entitled to rescind agreement
Jurisdiction:

Starwood Group Inc. v. Calvelti et al

The condominium corporation had commenced a Court action against the developer and others involved in the original construction, seeking damages for various alleged deficiencies and other matters relating to the development.
Jurisdiction:

York Condominium Corp. No. 359 v. Solmica Chemical International Inc.

Window replacement project did not require owner involvement. (Arbitrator’s decision. Leave to appeal refused.)
Jurisdiction:

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 949 v. Staib [Ontario Superior Court]

“No pets” provision in declaration not enforced where condominium corporation has been too slow in taking enforcement action
Jurisdiction:

Metropolitan Condominium Corporation No. 949 v. Staib [See Condo Cases Across Canada, Part 13 (February 2006)] (Ontario Superior Court)

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.pdf