To the very short list of Ontario s 135 Oppression rulings has been added an award of $10 K and a judicial Order that a 20 unit waterfront condo corporation honour its commitment to issue a section 98 Agreement.

After years of ( held ) disregard of S 98 process ( for approval & documentation of common element changes sought by individual unit owners ) a Muskoka waterfront condo corp is held to have oppressed ex-Director Noguera & wife .

It is held to have oppressively breached arrangements to platform the Nogueras’ purchase of the adjacent unit and to allow opening of physical access through the common element wall.

With proper abstentions & conditions including a promised section 98 documentation process, the Noguera applicants had gone ahead with purchasing the adjacent unit ( without needing Declaration change; both units would remain discrete registered entities, the only change being arms-length identicality of both ownerships ).

To breach the common element wall between the adjacent discrete units, conditions had been resolved between the Nogueras & the condo corp.

Such included formal s 98 documentation – foolishly and carelessly continued ignored by adversaries until some sort of s* *t storm later – and potentially problematic restoration of common wall. Old habits may die hard. And the judge hears allegations of "evil" and "spying" . . .

( Apparently unaddressed for this covenant to run with titles, which subsequent discrete unit owner would fund & conduct the wall restoration IF units eventually return to discrete ownership ?

If the Nogueras eventually sell their adjacent, discrete condo units to non-identical buyers, will there be fireworks about funding the restoration ? ).

Yes . . . tons of loose ends . . . .

Court notes s 98 finally getting universally applied . . .

Bottom line : With finding of Oppression against the condo corporation, ONSC judge awards the victim Nogueras $10 K damages for that oppression and an Order that the condo corp issue them the s 98 authorization as historically agreed . . . .

Noguera v Muskoka C.C. # 22 2018 ONSC 7278 issued Dec 11/18 http://canlii.ca/t/hwj6w