SHAKERI v CONDO CORPORATION PLAN NO. 0524360

The Applicant brought a repeatedly amended Originating Application against the Respondents, a Condo Corporation, an associated company, Series Management Inc. (“SMI”), and a neighbouring unit owner, alleging wide‑ranging misconduct in the administration and operation of the building. The claims included alleged oppression and non‑compliance under Section 67 of the Condominium Property Act, RSA 2000, c C-22 (“CPA”), failure to provide records, pests, deficient maintenance, lack of security cameras, heat interference, improper governance and elections, licensing breaches, and tort‑based allegations against the neighbour (assault, harassment, property damage). The Respondents applied for Summary Dismissal, relying heavily on prior procedural Orders, the inappropriateness of proceeding by Originating Application, and lack of evidence supporting improper conduct.

The Court applied the summary disposition framework and emphasized that Originating Applications must be capable of summary determination. On the condominium claims, Mcleod J. applied oppression and improper conduct principles found in Section 67 of the CPA, including considerations of whether conduct breached objectively reasonable expectations and rose to the level of oppression, unfair prejudice, or unfair disregard. Mere disagreement with board decisions, maintenance priorities, or security measures was insufficient to establish improper conduct and procedural non‑compliance without prejudice justified only declaratory relief. The Court also reinforced finality doctrines (functus officio / abuse of process) to prevent re‑litigation of issues already determined, and expert evidence admissibility requirements (noting Rule 5.34) to reject informal or deficient opinion evidence. Finally, McLeod J. confirmed that disputed tort‑style neighbour claims and credibility contests cannot proceed by Originating Application and should not be converted where litigants repeatedly ignore procedural direction, underscoring the Court’s discretion to dismiss rather than re‑cast proceedings.

The Court then summarily dismissed the Application in its entirety, except for granting narrow declaratory relief that (1) the condo corporation failed to provide certain financial statements in a timely manner, and (2) failed to formally conduct an election at the 2023 Annual General Meeting. No damages or substantive remedies were awarded by the Court and claims against SMI were dismissed as barred by prior final Orders (and, in any event, were substantively unfounded). Claims against the neighbouring owner were also dismissed as improperly brought by Originating Application and unsuitable for summary determination, as they involved significant factual disputes and tort claims that should have proceeded (if at all) by Statement of Claim. Costs were reserved, with the condo corporation and other Respondents treated as substantially successful.