Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520

• Judge: Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: April 10, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2015 ONCA 520;(2015), 336 O.A.C. 391 (CA)

Maple Ridge Com. Mgt. v. Peel Condo. (2015), 336 O.A.C. 391 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.013

Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. (plaintiff/respondent) v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231 (defendant/appellant)

(C59661; 2015 ONCA 520)

Indexed As: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 231

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan, JJ.A.

July 9, 2015.

Summary:

The parties entered into a contract appointing Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. as the property management company for Peel Condominium Corp. No. 231 for a three year term. Pursuant to the agreement either party could terminate the contract upon 60 days written notice or pay in lieu of notice (para. 16.1), or, alternatively, immediately for cause (para. 16.5(c)). The Condominium Corp. terminated the contract under 16.5(c) which allowed immediate termination where Maple Ridge was "insubordinate, reckless or grossly negligent in performing its duties". Maple Ridge commenced a small claims action for damages, against the Condominium Corp., alleging breach of contract. Maple Ridge argued that the Condominium Corp. did not have cause to terminate and therefore was entitled to give 60 days prior written notice or pay in lieu ($8,303.24).

The Ontario Small Claims Court (trial judge) held that there was insubordination, recklessness and/or gross negligence by Maple Ridge entitling the Condominium Corp. to terminate the agreement without notice pursuant to paragraph 16.5 (c). Maple Ridge's claim was dismissed. Maple Ridge appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court, per Edward, J., in a decision with neutral citation 2014 ONSC 3660, allowed the appeal. The court ruled that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review and ordered that the case be remitted to the Small Claims Court for a new trial before a different deputy judge. Edward, J., also dealt with costs issues in a decision with neutral citation 2014 ONSC 4524. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 231 appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Divisional Court and reinstated the judgment of the Small Claims Court. The appeal court held that the Divisional Court erred in finding that the reasons of the trial judge did not permit meaningful appellate review. In particular, that the Divisional Court incorrectly applied the standard for assessing the sufficiency of reasons, failed to adequately consider the trial record and failed to consider the Small Claims Court context in which the decision was rendered. The court awarded costs to the Condominium Corp.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions - [See all Practice - Topic 9752.2 ].

Courts - Topic 1403

Administration - General - Access to courts (incl. access to justice issues) - [See fourth Practice - Topic 9752.2 ].

Practice - Topic 9228

Appeals - New trials - Grounds - Reasons for judgment insufficient - [See second Practice - Topic 9752.2 ].

Practice - Topic 9752.2

Small claims - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court, on reviewing the sufficiency reasons for judgment of a Small Claims Court judge, was to apply the correctness standard - See paragraph 22.

Practice - Topic 9752.2

Small claims - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that on an appeal in a small claims matter it would not be an error for the Divisional Court to remit a case back to the Small Claims Court for a new trial if the reasons of the trial judge were so insufficient that there were not capable of being reviewed - See paragraph 23.

Practice - Topic 9752.2

Small claims - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - The Divisional Court set aside a Small Claims Court judge's decision for insufficiency of reasons (i.e., they did not adequately express the "what" and the "why") - On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that although the Divisional Court correctly cited the standard to permit meaningful appellate review, the court erred in applying the standard on the facts of this case - In fact, the "what" and the "why" were clear in the trial judge's seven pages of reasons, which comprised of a thorough analysis of the relevant evidence, legal definitions, and legal authorities - Further, once the Divisional Court determined that the reasons were facially incapable of appellate review, it should have considered the record before the trial judge to determine if the reasons were more comprehensible when read in the context of the record - In failing to conduct a contextual analysis, the Divisional Court erred in law - See paragraphs 24 to 32.

Practice - Topic 9752.2

Small claims - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "Reasons from the Small Claims Court must be sufficiently clear to permit judicial review on appeal. They must explain to the litigants what has been decided and why ... However, appellate consideration of Small Claims Court reasons must recognize the informal nature of that court, as well as the volume of cases it handles and its statutory mandate to deal with these cases efficiently. In short, in assessing the adequacy of the reasons, context matters ... Just as oral reasons will not necessarily be as detailed as written reasons, reasons from the Small Claims Court will not always be as thorough as those in Superior Court decisions. Failing to take the Small Claims Court context into account only serves to restrict access to justice by unnecessarily imparting formality and delay into a legal process that is designed to be informal and efficient" - See paragraph 35.

Practice - Topic 9762.1

Small claims - Appeals - Scope of review - [See first Practice - Topic 9752.2 ].

Cases Noticed:

Holland v. Toronto (City), [1927] S.C.R. 242; 59 O.L.R. 628, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. R.E.M., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 13].

D.M. Drugs v. Bywater et al. (2013), 307 O.A.C. 71; 2013 ONCA 356, refd to. [para. 13].

F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41; 380 N.R. 82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74, refd to. [para. 13].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 22].

Randall et al. v. Lakeridge Health Oshawa et al. (2010), 270 O.A.C. 371; 2010 ONCA 537, refd to. [para. 23].

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Neinstein (2010), 259 O.A.C. 313; 99 O.R.(3d) 1; 2010 ONCA 193, refd to. [para. 23].

Hill et al. v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129; 368 N.R. 1; 230 O.A.C. 260; 2007 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 31].

Hryniak v. Mauldin (2014), 453 N.R. 51; 314 O.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 33].

Doerr v. Sterling Paralegal, 2014 ONSC 2335 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

Massoudinia v. Volfson, [2013] O.A.C. Uned. 19; 2013 ONCA 29, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, sect. 25 [para. 34].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (6th Ed. 1983), generally [para. 7].

Linden, Allen M., and Feldthusen, Bruce, Canadian Tort Law (8th Ed.), generally [para. 7].

Counsel:

Michael A. Spears, for the appellant;

Timothy Duggan, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 10, 2015, before Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Hourigan, J.A., on July 9, 2015.