Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A self-represented condominium unit owner brought an Originating Application seeking $48,500.00 in damages and other relief against the Condo Corporation, its management company, and a neighbour, alleging multiple forms of misconduct under s 67 of the Condominium Property Act.

• Claims against Series Management Inc. (SMI) were barred by a prior court order requiring SMI's removal from the action, and the applicant's appeal of that order was struck and deemed abandoned, engaging the doctrine of functus officio against re-litigation.

• Insufficient evidence was tendered to establish improper conduct by the Condo Corporation regarding pest control, building maintenance, security cameras, or heat supply, with the applicant failing to follow required bylaw notification procedures.

• Expert evidence submitted by the applicant on the heating issue was given no weight for non-compliance with Rule 5.34 and Form 25 of the Alberta Rules of Court.

• Tort claims against the neighbour for assault, property damage, and harassment were improperly brought via Originating Application rather than a Statement of Claim, and involved substantial factual disputes incapable of summary determination.

• Only two minor irregularities were proven — the failure to hold a formal board election at the 2023 AGM and one late provision of financial statements — but neither warranted monetary relief beyond declaratory orders.

The parties and the property

Hooshang Shakeri owns and resides in a unit in a condominium building in Edmonton, Alberta, having purchased his unit in early 2023 with the transfer of land registered on March 24, 2023. His next-door neighbour, Gerald Simpson, also owns and resides in a unit in the same building. The building is managed through Condominium Corporation Plan No. 0524360 (the "Condo Corp"), registered under the Condominium Property Act, RSA 2000, c C-22 (the "Act"), with Ben and Constance Seutter serving as its directors. Two other related entities feature in the dispute: Series Management Inc. ("SMI"), a corporation wholly owned and operated by Ben and Constance Seutter that had previously collected condo fees and provided general repair and maintenance services for the Condo Corp, and 507357 Alberta Ltd. ("507"), also owned and directed by the Seutters, which together with the Seutters individually holds a majority of the 27 units in the building.

The applicant's complaints and the originating application

Mr. Shakeri filed an Originating Application on February 26, 2024, which he amended three times, with the final version filed on January 10, 2025. The application was brought against the Condo Corp, SMI, and Mr. Simpson. Mr. Shakeri sought multiple forms of damages and costs totalling $48,500.00, as well as other relief including production of records, ending of harassment, and performance of tasks at the building. His complaints spanned a wide range of issues: alleged failure by the Condo Corp to provide financial statements and meeting records, a persistent cockroach and mouse problem, inadequate maintenance of common areas including the parking surface, flooring, and mailboxes, refusal to install security cameras, deliberate shutting off of heat to his unit, failure to conduct a proper election at the 2023 Annual General Meeting ("AGM"), failure to pay conduct money for questioning, and failure to produce a condominium management licence for SMI. Against Mr. Simpson, Mr. Shakeri alleged assault, property damage, and harassment.

Procedural history and multiple court orders

The litigation was marked by a protracted procedural history. On March 18, 2024, Teskey J permitted Mr. Shakeri to amend his Originating Application to add the Condo Corp. Mr. Shakeri attempted to appeal this order approximately six months later but was not permitted to extend the time to appeal. On September 11, 2024, Lee J ordered Mr. Shakeri to remove SMI from the action and to name the Condo Corp. Mr. Shakeri named the Condo Corp but did not remove SMI. He appealed the Lee Order, but the appeal was struck for failure to file the appeal record on time and was deemed abandoned on January 22, 2025. On February 27, 2025, Mah J adjourned the matter to a special chambers hearing to determine three core questions: whether the Condo Corp committed improper conduct under s 67 of the Act, whether Mr. Shakeri's claims against SMI could proceed, and whether his claims against Mr. Simpson could be heard. Mr. Shakeri also applied to appeal the Mah Order but ended up abandoning the appeal. Two further interlocutory applications were brought by Mr. Shakeri. Lema J heard his application on July 30, 2025 to add new claims regarding a reduction in condo fees, cancellation of a caveat registered with Land Titles for unpaid condo fees, and payment of damages; that application was dismissed with costs to be determined in the special chambers application. Whitling J heard his application on October 3, 2025 to file evidence past the deadline with respect to SMI; that application was dismissed with costs immediately payable by Mr. Shakeri.

The legislative framework: section 67 of the Condominium Property Act

The central statutory provision at issue was s 67 of the Act, which defines "improper conduct" to include non-compliance with the Act, regulations, or bylaws by a corporation, board member, or owner, as well as the conduct of a corporation's business affairs or the exercise of the board's powers in a manner that is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or that unfairly disregards the interests of an interested party. The Court noted that oppressive conduct has been defined in Alberta jurisprudence as conduct that is burdensome, harsh, wrongful, or lacking in probity or fair dealing, while "unfairly prejudicial" means acts that are unjustly or inequitably detrimental. For oppressive conduct claims, the claimant must prove a breach of reasonable expectations and that the breach amounts to oppression, unfair prejudice, or unfair disregard.

The building's bylaws

Several of the Condo Corp's bylaws were relevant to the analysis. Bylaw 42 required that any request for records be made in writing, delivered to the Condo Corp's registered address with a pre-paid envelope. Bylaw 2(B) required that complaints be submitted in writing, mailed to the Condo Corp and addressed to the Board. Bylaw 66(b) specified that units must be kept free of insects and vermin, and the Board informed unit owners that they were responsible for insects and vermin in their units. Bylaw 22 defined quorum for meetings as those entitled to vote who represent no less than one third of the total Unit Factors. Bylaw 77(A) contained an exclusion of liability clause relied upon by the Condo Corp in relation to the security camera issue, though the Court did not need to rule on its application.

Claims against SMI dismissed as previously adjudicated

The Court held that all claims against SMI had already been dismissed by the Lee Order, which required SMI's removal from the action. That order was never set aside, and Mr. Shakeri's appeal of it was struck and deemed abandoned. Citing the doctrine of functus officio and the Court of Appeal's guidance in Brothers v Kirwan, 2025 ABCA 37, Justice McLeod emphasized that allowing the claims against SMI to proceed would constitute re-litigation of what had already been decided. Even had the claims been capable of proceeding, the Court found they would have been dismissed on the merits, as the evidence did not establish that SMI was engaging in managerial activities contrary to the Act, and no management contract existed between SMI and the Condo Corp or anyone else associated with the building.

Claims against the Condo Corp largely unsubstantiated

Regarding the alleged failure to provide financial records, the Court found no evidence that Mr. Shakeri had followed the process required under the Condo Corp's bylaws to request and receive additional documents. The Act and bylaws did not require audited financial statements, and there was no basis to conclude financial impropriety had occurred. On the pest complaint, the Court found Mr. Shakeri had not provided evidence to show a persistent pest problem either in his own unit or elsewhere in the building, and had not provided evidence that he had notified the Condo Corp in the required form or that he had taken steps to address the issue in his own unit. On the building maintenance issues, the Court concluded that Mr. Shakeri's disagreement with the Condo Corp's decisions on priorities for maintenance and repair did not constitute improper conduct; the evidence did not reveal a state of disrepair sufficient to show that the Condo Corp had been breaching its responsibilities under the Act or bylaws. On the security camera issue, the Court found no legislative requirement or bylaw obligation to install cameras, and nothing in Mr. Shakeri's application that proved security cameras would have avoided the damages he claimed. On the heating complaint, the Court gave no weight to Mr. Shakeri's purported expert evidence, which did not comply with Rule 5.34 or Form 25 of the Alberta Rules of Court, and accepted that the Condo Corp cannot restrict heat to a single unit, with the Condo Corp's service records supporting the conclusion that heat was delivered to Mr. Shakeri's unit. On the conduct money claim of $2,000.00, the Court dispensed with it under Rule 6.17(1), noting the small amount it represented compared to the overall claim and the lack of evidence that Mr. Shakeri had requested the allowance before questioning took place. On the management licence claim, the Court found the Condo Corp was self-managed and that SMI's previous activity of collecting condo fees was expressly exempted from licensing requirements under the Real Estate Exemption Regulation, Alta Reg 111/1996.

Two admitted irregularities by the Condo Corp

The Condo Corp admitted that no formal election was held at the 2023 AGM, as the previous Board was requested to continue, no one else ran for a position, and the Board was acclaimed. It also admitted that financial statements for the 2024 AGM were late, in breach of s 30(4) of the Act. The Court declared these as breaches but found no evidence that anyone was prejudiced by either. The same Board was elected at the 2024 AGM, and the Condo Corp had brought itself back into compliance with the required timeliness of providing financial statements.

Claims against the neighbour dismissed on procedural grounds

The Court found that Mr. Shakeri's tort claims against Mr. Simpson for assault, property damage, and harassment were improperly brought in an Originating Application. Under the Alberta Rules of Court, a Statement of Claim must be used to commence actions where there is a substantial factual dispute and where there is no enactment that authorizes an originating application. The allegations against Mr. Simpson were subject to significant factual dispute, were not appropriately brought as a form of relief under s 67 of the Act, and related to tort claims. The total monetary remedies Mr. Shakeri claimed against Mr. Simpson amounted to $10,000.00, which is below the civil claim threshold that divides the jurisdictions of the Alberta Courts of Justice and King's Bench. Although Rule 3.2(6) would have allowed the Court to correct and continue the proceeding in a different form, Justice McLeod declined to exercise that discretion given that Mr. Shakeri was already put on notice from Mr. Simpson's arguments and prior judicial hearings that his claims were questionably included in an Originating Application, yet he had not attempted to file a claim in an appropriate form or made any application seeking to correct the form of his claims.

Ruling and outcome

Justice McLeod dismissed all of Mr. Shakeri's claims against the Condo Corp, SMI, and Mr. Simpson, save for the declaratory findings regarding the Condo Corp's failure to hold an election at the 2023 AGM and one failure to provide financial reports on time. No monetary relief or further remedy was awarded for these minor irregularities in the conduct of the Condo Corp's activities. The Condo Corp readily admitted the two irregularities, and the Court found on balance that the Condo Corp was the successful party in responding to Mr. Shakeri's claims, while SMI and Mr. Simpson were wholly successful. The exact amount of costs to be paid by Mr. Shakeri was not determined in the decision; the Court directed that if the parties could not agree on costs, they could each provide written submissions of no more than 5 pages on the appropriate costs to be paid by Mr. Shakeri by no later than May 15, 2026.