Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of a condominium corporation’s duty and remedies under ss. 117 and 119 of the Condominium Act, 1998 and s. 134 compliance proceedings against a unit owner for alleged abusive and disruptive conduct in the common elements
• Determination of which incidents of alleged misconduct (verbal abuse, intoxication, property interference, assaults, noise) were actually proven on the evidence and sufficient to justify a compliance order but not an eviction or restraining order
• Weighing whether the condominium’s pursuit of both compliance and eviction was reasonable or amounted to frivolous, abusive, or punitive litigation in light of the warning letter and the owner’s subsequent conduct
• Application of costs principles under s. 131 Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, including divided success, proportionality, reasonable expectations, and access to justice in a high-cost condominium dispute
• Consideration of whether substantial indemnity costs were justified based on alleged reprehensible or abusive litigation conduct and the court’s conclusion that no party’s conduct warranted sanction
• Exercise of judicial discretion to award no costs to either side where a warning letter largely achieved compliance and both parties had mixed success on the application and costs positions

Background and factual context

This case involves a dispute between Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2490 (the Condominium Corporation) and a unit owner, Victoria Francis, concerning her conduct in the condominium’s common elements and compliance with the Condominium Act, 1998 and the condominium’s governing documents. The Condominium alleged that Ms. Francis engaged in a series of inappropriate incidents, including insulting a board member, Mr. Gumaste, using profanity and personal attacks, insulting staff, using vulgar and abusive language, shouting at a staff member, pushing or shoving the computer or monitor on the concierge’s desk, and being intoxicated on the common elements. These events formed the factual foundation for the application seeking court-ordered relief. In response to these concerns, the Condominium issued a formal warning letter to Ms. Francis on March 6, 2024. After this warning, the court found that Ms. Francis did not engage in further conduct of the same abusive or disruptive nature. There was no evidence that after the warning she continued to be verbally abusive, to damage property, or to interfere with other unit owners’ use and enjoyment of the property through intoxication, shouting, or vulgar language. Her post-warning conduct consisted mainly of efforts to solicit support from staff and neighbours in connection with the litigation.

The application and relief sought

The Condominium proceeded by way of application under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998, relying on its statutory obligation under s. 17(3) to take all reasonable steps to enforce compliance with the Act, the declaration, by-laws, and rules. It alleged breaches of ss. 117(1) and 119(1) of the Act, which address dangerous activities and compliance with the Act and the condominium’s documents, as well as breaches of various provisions in the declaration and rules governing behaviour in the building. The application advanced four main heads of relief. First, the Condominium sought a conduct-based compliance order under s. 134 of the Act, grounded in alleged breaches of ss. 117(1) and 119(1). Second, it sought a conduct-based restraining order under the same statutory provisions. Third, it requested a compliance order tied specifically to various provisions of the declaration, again anchored in ss. 117(1) and 119(1). Fourth, and most significantly from Ms. Francis’s perspective, the Condominium sought a restraining order effectively evicting or restraining her from residing at the condominium, based on s. 117(1) and s. 134 of the Act. Ms. Francis resisted the application and characterized it as frivolous, unnecessary, abusive, and punitive in nature. She argued that the alleged misconduct should have been addressed through internal or less drastic means, such as warnings and alternative dispute resolution, rather than escalating to an application that included an eviction-type remedy. She also proposed mediation after being served with the application, but the Condominium declined to participate, even though mediation, while not mandatory, could have provided an opportunity for earlier, non-litigious resolution.

Findings on liability and conduct

In the underlying merits decision released on October 29, 2025, the court found that Ms. Francis had breached ss. 117 and 119 of the Condominium Act, 1998, as well as the condominium’s Declaration and Rules. The judge accepted evidence of numerous incidents of inappropriate behaviour in the common elements, including insulting and confrontational conduct toward board members and staff, vulgar language, shouting, and physical interference with property such as pushing or shoving a computer monitor at the concierge desk. These proven incidents were serious enough to justify a conduct-based compliance order. At the same time, the court rejected much of the more serious or expansive factual allegations. The Condominium did not prove assaults involving neighbours, most of the alleged intoxication-related complaints, or many of the noise complaints. The evidentiary picture, therefore, was mixed: while there were multiple substantiated episodes of inappropriate conduct, the pattern fell short of the most extreme allegations advanced by the Condominium. This partial success on the evidence affected both the scope of the relief granted and the later assessment of costs. A crucial factual finding for the costs analysis was that the March 6, 2024 warning letter was “almost entirely successful” in curbing Ms. Francis’s problematic conduct. After that letter, the abusive behaviour essentially ceased, undermining any suggestion that only court-ordered eviction could protect other residents and staff.

Outcome on the main application

On the merits, the court concluded that the Condominium Corporation was entitled to a conduct-based compliance order under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998. That order required Ms. Francis to comply with ss. 117 and 119 of the Act and with the condominium’s declaration, by-laws, and rules. However, the court declined to grant the more severe remedy of a restraining or eviction-type order preventing Ms. Francis from residing in the building. The judge accepted that the Condominium had a statutory duty to enforce compliance and that pursuing a compliance order was not frivolous or abusive in itself. Nonetheless, the evidence did not justify the extreme measure of removing Ms. Francis from her home, especially in light of her changed conduct after the warning letter and the partial failure of the most serious allegations. The court therefore found divided success. The Condominium was successful in proving breaches of the Act and the governing documents and in securing a compliance order, but it failed on a significant component of its requested relief: the eviction or restraining order. Ms. Francis, for her part, avoided eviction but remained subject to a compliance order reflecting the court’s findings about her past misconduct.

Costs positions and legal framework

Following the October 29, 2025 decision, the court invited written submissions on costs. The Condominium sought partial indemnity costs of $32,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements. Ms. Francis sought substantially higher costs, asking for substantial indemnity in the amount of $110,921.92 on the basis that the application was frivolous, unnecessary, and abusive, and that the Condominium’s pursuit of eviction had forced her to incur significant fees. The court approached costs under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01. It reviewed the purposes of costs—partial indemnification of the successful party, facilitating access to justice, discouraging frivolous claims and defences, sanctioning inappropriate litigation conduct, and encouraging settlement—and emphasized that costs must be fair, reasonable, and proportionate, not an automatic reflection of who technically “won.” The judge canvassed recent appellate guidance on reasonable and objectively reasonable expectations in costs awards, warning against allowing parties with deeper pockets to inflate costs in a way that chills access to justice for less wealthy litigants. The court also reviewed the circumstances justifying elevated scales of costs, including offers to settle under Rule 49 and litigation behaviour deserving of sanction. Substantial indemnity costs were described as rare and reserved for reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct, or proceedings that are clearly vexatious, frivolous, or an abuse of process.

Assessment of conduct and divided success for costs

Ms. Francis argued that she was the substantially successful party because the “heart” of the application was the requested eviction order, which the Condominium failed to obtain. The Condominium, in contrast, contended that it achieved approximately 75% success, having obtained compliance-related relief on three of the four heads advanced. The court rejected a strict issue-by-issue or percentage-based approach, noting that distributive costs awards have been criticized and that courts should look at the overall outcome rather than mechanically tallying wins and losses. Applying that holistic lens, the judge found that there was genuinely divided success. The Condominium was partially successful in proving misconduct and obtaining a compliance order, but it failed to establish much of the alleged misconduct and did not obtain the drastic remedy of eviction. The court then turned to the parties’ conduct in the litigation and the events leading up to it. It rejected Ms. Francis’s characterization of the application as frivolous, unnecessary, or abusive. The Condominium had a statutory obligation under s. 17(3) of the Condominium Act to enforce compliance, and the application itself was not an abuse of process simply because the Condominium was unsuccessful on some aspects or sought strong remedies. At the same time, the court was not prepared to sanction Ms. Francis through an adverse costs award. A pivotal consideration was the effectiveness of the March 6, 2024 warning letter, which largely brought an end to the problematic conduct. This significantly undercut the need for the escalation and expense of a full application, especially one that pressed for eviction despite the changed behaviour and the availability of less intrusive measures, including mediation, which Ms. Francis had proposed but the Condominium declined.

Final costs ruling and overall outcome

In the result, the court exercised its broad discretion under s. 131 Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(4) to order that no costs be payable by either side. The Condominium’s request for $32,000 in partial indemnity costs was denied, and Ms. Francis’s request for $110,921.92 on a substantial indemnity basis was also refused. The judge concluded that the Condominium had not engaged in conduct warranting sanctions or elevated costs, but also recognized that the warning letter had largely achieved its compliance objective, making it inappropriate to saddle Ms. Francis with the Condominium’s litigation expenses. The final picture is therefore one of mixed success: the Condominium Corporation is the successful party to the extent that it obtained a conduct-based compliance order and established multiple breaches of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the governing documents, while Ms. Francis successfully resisted the requested eviction or restraining order and avoided any adverse costs award. No damages or other monetary relief were ordered in the merits decision as described in the costs endorsement, and the costs decision itself explicitly directs that each party bear its own legal expenses. As a result, there is no determinable total monetary award, costs, or damages granted in favour of any party in this case.