The parties brought cross Applications to determine, among other things, if the condominium corporation (the “Condo Corp”) is entitled to further Costs from a prior Court Order pursuant to Rule 9.14.

By way of background, a resident of the Condo Corp owned a unit adjacent to a unit owned by the Respondents. A tenant of the Respondents’ unit cut a hole between the two units and had continuously harassed the resident prior to this incident. As a result, the resident and the Condo Corp commenced an Action, obtained a restraining Order against the tenant, and sought his eviction. On December 9, 2020, Master Smart ordered the tenant’s eviction and required the Respondents to pay for repairs to both units and cover Condo Corp’s Costs of the eviction Application on a solicitor-and-his-own-client basis (the “Eviction Order”). 

A draft Eviction Order was sent to the Respondents’ counsel on December 10, 2020, and revisions were requested. A revised draft was sent on December 30, 2020, specifying the Respondents' responsibility for repairs to the resident’s unit. Despite numerous emails from Condo Corp’s counsel, the Respondents’ counsel did not respond until January 27, 2021, approving the December 10 draft, which was later filed. Meanwhile, the Respondents completed repairs to their unit without using a contractor proposed by the Condo Corp. When the parties attended before the Assessment Officer to assess Condo Corp’s Costs awarded under the Eviction Order, the Assessment Officer advised that given the wording in the Eviction Order, he could only deal with Costs of the appearances before Master Smart and Costs with respect to the Eviction Order.

The Condo Corp applied for an Order under Rule 9.14 to grant Costs for the entire Action up to December 9, 2020, on a solicitor-and-own-client basis, arguing that the Respondents’ counsel deliberately ignored their efforts to get the Eviction Order approved and greatly increased Condo Corp’s Costs. The Court noted that Rule 9.14 allows the Court to make further Orders without varying the original Judgment, only if it is necessary to provide the litigants with a remedy to which they are entitled under the original Order. The Condo Corp’s Application for Costs covering all steps in this Action was considered to exceed these limits as it sought to vary the Eviction Order, which was beyond the Court's jurisdiction under Rule 9.14.

The Applications were dismissed as a result.