Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 534 v. Antunes, 2025 ONSC 3377
For transactional real estate lawyers advising condominium corporations or unit owners, a recent Ontario Superior Court decision offers an important reminder: winning doesn’t always mean full cost recovery, even when your condominium declaration says it should.
The Background
In Halton v. Antunes, Justice Parghi had previously ordered Christine Antunes to permanently vacate her condominium unit within 120 days, finding that her conduct and that of her mother Coralia (the unit owner) violated the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation’s Declaration and Rules. The June 2025 endorsement dealt solely with the question of costs.
What the Condo Corporation Sought
The condominium corporation came to court with what appeared to be strong arguments for full cost recovery. It relied on two provisions:
- Section 6.01 of its Declaration and Rules, requiring unit owners to indemnify the corporation for costs incurred “resulting from or caused by” the owner or tenant
- Section 134(5) of the Condominium Act, which states that costs ordered in compliance proceedings shall be added to a unit’s common expenses
The corporation’s actual costs totaled $41,501.83, inclusive of HST and disbursements. It sought an order that the respondents pay 100% of these costs, recoverable as additional common expenses.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Parghi declined to award full indemnity costs, and ultimately ordered the respondents to pay only $7,500, which was roughly 18% of the corporation’s actual costs.
The key takeaway? Section 134(5) of the Act doesn’t override the court’s discretion to award reasonable costs. As Justice Parghi explained, the court’s discretion to award reasonable costs between parties operates independently of any entitlement the condominium may have under the Act or its governing documents to recover actual costs.
This principle isn’t new. The court cited several authorities establishing that courts retain full discretion under the Courts of Justice Act when fixing costs, such as Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2931 v. Tsatskin, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 1385 v. Skyline Executive Properties Inc., Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1466 v. Weinstein, and Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2136 v. Longhurst.
Why Courts Resist Routine Full Indemnity Awards
Justice Parghi highlighted a “compelling” policy rationale against routinely granting full indemnity costs in condominium disputes: the risk of adverse costs awards helps discourage unreasonable and abusive conduct. If unsuccessful parties knew they’d never face significant costs consequences, the deterrent effect would evaporate.
Factors That Reduced the Award
Several considerations led to the substantial discount from the corporation’s actual costs:
- Disability and Special Needs: The court acknowledged that Christine faced challenges as an individual with addiction issues. Some increased litigation costs were “reasonably attributable to the difficulties inherent in litigating with a person with special needs or disabilities.” The corporation was expected to absorb some increased costs to accommodate Christine’s circumstances.
- Financial Hardship: Christine had no paid employment and was receiving Ontario Disability Support Program benefits. Coralia worked cleaning homes. A large costs award would cause significant hardship, particularly as the family would incur additional moving expenses.
- Absence of Sanctionable Conduct: While the hearing was more protracted than ideal, the duration was partly attributable to Christine’s addiction rather than deliberate improper conduct warranting an enhanced costs award.
Practical Implications
For lawyers advising condominium corporations:
- Don’t promise full cost recovery based solely on declaration language or section 134(5). Courts retain broad discretion.
- Factor disability and hardship into settlement discussions. These considerations will likely reduce any costs award.
- Partial indemnity (60%) is the starting point, not full indemnity, even in successful compliance applications.
- The $7,500 award can still be added to common expenses under section 134(5), even though it’s far less than actual costs incurred.
For lawyers advising unit owners:
- Financial circumstances matter. Courts will consider ability to pay when fixing costs.
- Disabilities and special needs may justify absorbing some increased litigation costs, though they won’t eliminate costs liability entirely.
- Even with strong declaration language, corporations face uncertainty in cost recovery.
Conclusion
Halton v. Antunes reinforces that condominium litigation costs remain subject to judicial discretion focused on fairness and reasonableness. While section 134(5) provides a mechanism for collecting awarded costs through common expenses, it doesn’t guarantee full recovery of a corporation’s legal bills. Both sides should approach these disputes with realistic expectations about costs exposure and recovery.
