Part 27 - 01/08/2009

We have found 17 items matching your search query.

Jurisdiction:

HOT TOPIC: TWO CONDOMINIUM CASES AT THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

HOT TOPIC: TWO CONDOMINIUM CASES AT THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL
Jurisdiction:

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1250 v. Mastercraft Group Inc. (Ontario Court of Appeal)

Condominium corporation successful on appeal. Developer in breach of fiduciary duties and construction obligations.
Jurisdiction:

McMillan v. Bruce Condominium Corporation No. 6 (Decision of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal)

Owner must pay for railing.
Jurisdiction:

London Condominium Corporation No. 21 v. Luis Rodrigues (Ontario Supreme Court of Justice)

Is director entitled to be indemnified by condominium corporation?
Jurisdiction:

McFlow Capital Corp. v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 27 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

Court orders appointment of administrator.
Jurisdiction:

Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 650 v. Claridge Homes Corp. (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

Court claim against Tarion can proceed.
Jurisdiction:

Kovats v. M.F. Property Management Ltd. (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

Owner’s claim against condominium corporation was subject to mandatory mediation and arbitration.
Jurisdiction:

Bigleaf Ventures Ltd. v. Marine Drive Properties Ltd. (British Columbia Supreme Court)

Developer’s disclosure statement contained material fact that was false or misleading.
Jurisdiction:

Strata Plan LMS 3904 v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. (British Columbia Supreme Court)

23/09/13 – Jurisdiction British Columbia Part 27 published on 01/08/09 Court considers the following questions: How many occurrences? How many deductibles? In 2005, the strata corporation discovered that about one-third of the units were being used for marijuana grow-operations.  Damage to the property (as a result of the grow-ops) was close to $500,000.  The corporation’s insurance provided coverage for this type of loss, but was subject to a $50,000 deductible for each occurrence.  The insurer took the position that each grow-op, in each unit, was a separate occurrence, triggering a separate deductible in each case.  The insurer said: “Because a separate deductible applies to each apartment that was the location of a grow-op, and the repair [cost] in respect of each apartment is less than the deductible, the insurers’ position is that there is no indemnity due under the policy.” The strata corporation asserted that all of the grow-ops were part of one overall operat
Jurisdiction:

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 932 v. Lahrkamp (Ontario Court of Appeal)

Appeal allowed in part. No actionable harassment. Special costs award.
Jurisdiction:

Cambridge Plumbing Systems Ltd. v. Owners, Strata Plan VR 1632 (British Columbia Supreme Court)

Contractor claims against strata corporation for damages due to alleged improper tendering process. Claim dismissed.
Jurisdiction:

McMillan v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (Supreme Court of Canada)

Application for leave to appeal dismissed by Supreme Court of Canada. No basis for claim against CMHC.