Issues:

1. Did Miha Halik breach the Co-Ownership Agreement?
2. Does the breach entitle the Applicant to the orders sought?

Facts:

• Respondent breached the Co-Ownership Agreement from August 13, 2007 (revised January 24, 2018).
• Breaches included non-payment of dues, refusing access for repairs, and non-compliance with court orders.
• Issues included a water leak, refusal to cooperate with inspections, and pest infestation.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 2.03: Exclusive license terms.
• Article 7.02(i): Indemnity for breaches.
• Article 8.01: Default conditions.
• Article 8.02.1: Vacant possession upon default.
• Article 8.03.1: Lien for unpaid amounts.

Findings:

• The Respondent failed to comply with the Agreement and court orders.
• Breaches created health and safety risks and financial burdens on other co-owners.
• The Respondent owes substantial costs and damages.

Orders Granted:

• Vacant possession of Suite 707-580 Christie Street.
• Authorization to issue a writ of possession.
• Permission for the Applicant to sell the Respondent’s co-ownership interest.

Decision:

• Multiple court orders mandated the Respondent to comply, which he ignored.
• The court empathized with the Respondent but prioritized the safety and financial interests of other co-owners.
• The Applicant is awarded full indemnity costs of $29,908.

Conclusion:

• The court ruled in favor of the Applicant, granting orders for vacant possession and sale of the Respondent's interest, underscoring the need for compliance with co-ownership obligations and court orders.