The Applicant, Ms. Lauder, filed an Originating Application for Judicial Review of the Respondent condominium corporation’s conduct with respect to leaking windows.

In response to the Originating Application, the Respondent filed an Affidavit from the current president of the Board of Directors for the condominium corporation (“Ms. Wise”). One additional Affidavit was provided by another member of the Board which explained the timeline of events.

At some point in Ms. Wise’s Affidavit, the details of an incident between Ms. Lauder and a contractor were described. Master Robertson found that such details were contrary to Rule 13.18(1) and (2), as those details are “hearsay evidence, without clear indications of the actual source of the allegations.” As noted by Master Robertson, these Rules require the Affiant to both identify the source of their information and state that they believe that information to be true. Ms. Wise’s Affidavits failed to provide the requisite details. As a result, Master Robertson would not let the Board of Directors rely on the hearsay evidence for the truth of its assertions. The Board of Directors was only permitted to rely upon the hearsay evidence to argue that it had acted reasonably with Ms. Lauder.

Ultimately, on a full review of the merits, Master Robertson ordered the Board of Directors to seek repairs and awarded Ms. Lauder $5,000 for general damages and Costs, as to be determined between the parties.