Legal

February 11, 2026 Published by Huronia Chapter - By John De Vellis

Leduc and Preface V. OCSCC 758 and Dodin and Froislie and Lo

From the CCI Huronia Winter 2026 Condo Buzz Newsletter

The Condominium Act allows a court to appoint an administrator to take over the affairs of the corporation. The Act says only that a court may grant the application if it is “just or convenient”, but courts have developed a fairly stringent test that allows an administrator to be appointed only as a last resort.

In the Leduc/Prefasi application, the court found that there not sufficient grounds to order an administrator and further found that one of the applicants had been the cause of the gridlock on the Board (which was one of the grounds upon which the application was sought).

The court found that although the Board had not met for nearly 10 months and had not yet held its 2024 AGM (over a year after the year end), one of the applicants (who is a Board member and was the only applicant to provide evidence in support of the application) was the reason the Board was unable to meet and achieve quorum.

The Court found it was disingenuous for the applicants to assert that a condominium administrator should be appointed. “In effect, [the Applicant] has ground the work of the Condominium to a halt in an attempt to get his way in this legal proceeding.” The court found the Applicant’s behaviour was not in good faith.

The Court reiterated that appointing an administrator is a “last resort” and a “rare occurrence”, and the Board’s deadlock could be solved by adding a fifth Board member. As well, though the Applicants had argued that the manner in which a facility access fee was being charged was improper, the court found that there was no prejudice to the Applicants.

The key takeaway here is that courts are reluctant to interfere with condominium governance unless there is clear evidence of substantial mismanagement or inability to govern. Applicants who have been partially responsible for some of the governance issues are not likely to be granted relief from the court.

Li v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2205, decided by the Condominium Authority Tribunal on August 6, 2025.

Li owns a commercial unit in a mixed-use condominium. The unit was rented and the tenant operated a restaurant. About a year after the lease began, odour complaints began—mostly from the adjacent hair salon owner. Between January 2024 and April 2025, there were 11 verified complaints describing strong greasy smells traced to Li’s unit.

Li commenced the CAT application and claimed the condominium improperly accused her of creating a nuisance and that it improperly charged back legal costs in relation to the complaints. Though she was unsuccessful in her claim regarding the nuisance, the CAT agreed that the legal costs had been improperly charged back to her.

The CAT found that these odours were frequent and intense enough to constitute a nuisance under section 117(2)(b) of the Condominium Act and the Condominium’s declaration.

However, the odour issue ended when the restaurant operator left in March 2025, and no complaints were reported after April. So, while the CAT ordered Li to comply with the Act and declaration going forward, no further remedy was needed on the nuisance itself.

Li also argued that the Condominium had improperly charged back to her about $11,200 in legal fees relating to the matter- $4,200 prior to the CAT hearing and another $7,000 during the hearing. The owner had paid the $4,200 under protest.

Regarding the pre-hearing costs, the Condominium argued the CAT had no jurisdiction to retroactively rule on legal costs assessed prior to the hearing. The CAT disagreed and found that as the nuisance claims were within the CAT jurisdiction, so were the costs.

Next the Condominium that its indemnity provision allowed it to chargeback compliance costs. The CAT ruled that condominiums are entitled to damages or costs related to compliance if they are reasonably incurred. The CAT found that the Condominium had not acted reasonably in this case. Li had cooperated, and the Condominium had failed to share inspection results or explore solutions before escalating to legal threats. The CAT referred to previous caselaw and found the Condominium could not chargeback costs under the indemnity without a court order.

Regarding the $7,000 in hearing costs charged back to the owner, the CAT found such costs are at the discretion of the tribunal, and it was inappropriate for the Condominium to have sought collection of a chargeback or indemnification of an amount that remains at issue in the hearing. As a result, the CAT ordered the Condominium to refund the $4,200 in fees already paid and rescind any demand for an additional $7,000 related to this proceeding.

MTCC 1067 v. 1388020 Ontario Corp. 2025 ONCA 796

This a good case to demonstrate why it’s important to register your liens on time.

The unit owner, BSA, a medical services company, owned eight commercial condo units in the Condominium. It stopped paying common expenses in 2021. For reasons not disclosed in the decision, the Condominium only registered a lien in May 2024. The Condominium sued for arrears, seeking over $495,000 and vacant possession.

The Condominium Act provides condominium corporations with a lien to secure payment of common expenses. Condominium Act liens take priority over most other encumbrances (such as mortgages). However, such priority only exists if the lien is registered within 90 days after the arrears arise.

In this case, the Condominium argued that it was oppressive for the unit owner to have refused to pay its common elements fees and, because of that, the lien should cover the entirety of the arrears, not just those within the 90-day period prior to registration of the lien. The motion Judge agreed.

However, the Court of Appeal found that that was an error and partially reversed the motion Judge’s decision. While the Condominium was still entitled to Judgment for the full amount, its lien only applied to the portion of the arrears that had accrued 90 beginning days prior to registration (here, $110,883.29). The Court of Appeal found that expanding lien rights undermines statutory limits and prejudices third parties.

---

John De Vellis
Shibley Righton LLP