Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether eleven related actions should be tried together or one immediately after the other under Rule 6.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure was the central question on this motion.
• Uptown Construction and Osman Khorsand also sought a single common examination for discovery covering this action and the ten individual homeowner actions.
• Common questions of fact existed because all eleven actions arose from the same June 2, 2023 rain incident after the roof was stripped.
• Differences in causes of action were significant: the homeowners sue in tort, while the condo corporation alleges breach of the CCDC contract, professional negligence, and misrepresentation.
• Procedural divergence also weighed against the motion, as the ten homeowner actions proceed under Rule 76 and are far more advanced, while the condo corporation's $3,500,000.00 claim is in the regular stream.
• Balance of convenience considerations, including fairness to the homeowners and the absence of true efficiency gains, led the court to dismiss the motion.

Facts of the case

This matter began in or about April 2023, when Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1835 retained Cion Corp., an engineering firm, and subsequently, as allegedly recommended by Cion, retained Uptown Construction (2363959 Ontario Inc.), a roofing contractor, to replace the roof of a condo townhouse complex in Toronto. The CCDC Stipulated Price Contract was signed by the condo corporation, Uptown, and Cion on May 28, 2023, and work began on May 31, 2023. On Friday, June 2, 2023, the roof was stripped, with the upper deck allegedly exposed to the elements. A rainstorm began, and water entered the individual townhouse units, allegedly damaging the homeowners' property. That alleged damage led to ten individual lawsuits brought by homeowners against Uptown, Khorsand (the principal of Uptown), and Samira Afzalzada, allegedly an administrator and another principal of Uptown. The condo corporation brought this separate action against Uptown, Khorsand, and Cion, alleging breach of contract, professional negligence, and misrepresentation relating to the common elements, including the roof. Uptown and Khorsand moved for an order under Rule 6.01 that this action and the ten homeowner actions be heard at the same time or one immediately after the other, and for common discovery so that they would be subjected to only one examination for discovery across all eleven actions. The plaintiff and the homeowners agreed the ten individual actions could be heard together with a single common discovery of the defendants, but opposed melding those actions with the condo corporation's action.

Contractual and procedural provisions at issue

The motion turned on Rule 6.01, which permits actions to be tried together or one immediately after the other. The CCDC Stipulated Price Contract signed by the condo corporation, Uptown, and Cion was central to the corporation's claim, though the court noted it would likely play no or a very limited role in the ten homeowner actions. Also relevant was Rule 76, the simplified procedure under which the homeowner actions were commenced; the Statements of Claim assert this, and the Discovery Plan signed January 7, 2026 by counsel for the moving defendants notes these are Rule 76 proceedings. Paragraph 23 of each homeowner claim proposes "that this action be tried at Toronto, tried together as a mass tort with the unit owners claiming damages related to the same negligence of the Contractor." By contrast, the condo corporation's action, with a claim of $3,500,000.00, is in the regular stream.

The court's reasoning and analysis

Associate Justice Josefo asked first whether there was a common question of law or fact, or the same incident or occurrence, and found there could be no doubt that the June 2, 2023 rain incident started the entire matter, creating a common incident across the eleven cases. On the remaining criteria, however, the court found the condo corporation's action distinct in many ways. The causes of action differ: the homeowners sue in tort for breach of a duty of care owed by the trade to occupants, while the corporation alleges breach of the complex CCDC contract, professional negligence, and related claims, with crossclaims among the defendants and the two defendants "pointing the finger" at each other. Expert engineering evidence on the standard of care of an engineer and of Uptown will be needed in the corporation's action but is likely unrelated to the individual claims. Cion is not a party to the homeowner actions, so the parties are not the same. The homeowner actions are also further along: damages reports were served as of November 28, 2025, nine of ten homeowner discoveries under Rule 76 time limits were completed, answers to undertakings were delivered as of May 26, 2026, mandatory mediation was completed on June 5, 2026, and the matters now await a pre-trial. The court agreed with plaintiff's counsel that the negligence pleadings involve breaches of "different duties, that were owed to different parties" within "a different legal relationship." Trying the eleven cases together would offer no true efficiency, would render the Simplified Rule actions more complex, and would not promote settlement or narrow the issues. On the balance of convenience, it would not be just to make the homeowners wait for the far more complex condo corporation action to catch up.

Ruling and outcome

The motion brought by Uptown and Khorsand was dismissed. The condo corporation, as the responding plaintiff, succeeded in resisting the requested consolidation and common discovery: while the ten individual homeowner actions will be formally bound together under Rule 6.01 with common discovery of the defendants in those actions, the defendants in the condo corporation's action will be discovered separately, to be arranged along with the Cion defendants. On costs, the court urged counsel to agree, noting both sides failed to file a Compendium as required by the Rules; any agreed quantum can be added to a draft order for review, and if agreement proves elusive, a case conference will be scheduled. No exact monetary amount was ordered or awarded in this decision — costs remain to be agreed upon or determined.