Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
CAFCOR Forum
_GEN_GOTOBOTTOM Post Reply
TOPIC:
#18837
Court of Appeal UPHOLDS WINDING DOWN for DYSFUNCTION & OPPRESSION Carleton C.C. 396 2018/03/05 12:10  
1 - Decades of dispute culminate in ONCA upholding judicial dissolution & findings of oppression by what is now the majority control group. Doctor /lawyer Burdet represents his group in the latest. Is it merely the end of the beginning ?

Dewan et al v Burdet 2018 ONCA 195 issued Feb 28/18 http://canlii.ca/t/hqp69

2 - SEE more background at CAFCOR topic - 2016 ( BURDET & Carleton CC #396 : ONCA issues 17th online judgment in 25 year struggle. It's been to - but denied entry on appeal to - Canada's Supreme Court once already.)

https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=18656&catid=9#18656

3 Xcrpted from Court of Appeal Feb 28/18


" . . . [2] Following a 35-day trial, the trial judge released reasons for decision that were in excess of 200 pages. . . .

[4] The appellants submit that the trial judge erred in declaring that Mr. Burdet acted in a manner that was oppressive to the minority owners’ interests.

There is no merit in this submission.

The evidence of oppressive conduct on the part of Mr. Burdet is detailed, effectively unchallenged, and overwhelmingly compelling.

It includes a long history of self-dealing, lack of financial disclosure, charging CCC396 legal fees for personal matters, failing to declare conflicts, refusing to produce records despite being court-ordered to do so, and implementing an invalid by-law.

[5] As noted above, the trial judge declared that Mr. Burdet oppressed the minority owners.

He also found Mr. Burdet personally liable, along with ETRE and Claude-Alain Burdet in Trust,for the minority owners’ costs.

Mr. Burdet submits that the trial judge erred in finding him personally liable. We disagree.


. . . [19] We are of the view that the trial judge erred in principle in awarding costs that were disproportionate to the cost of collecting the common expense arrears.

He should not have ordered the minority owners to pay legal costs unrelated to the collection of arrears.

We therefore set aside the cost award made against the minority owners.

In its place, we order that the minority owners are liable for 20 percent of CCC396’s costs below.

We further order that the appellants, as the unsuccessful parties at trial, are jointly and severally liable for 80 percent of CCC396’s costs below.

We fix CCC396’s all-inclusive costs of the proceedings below at $220,000.

C. Disposition

[20] For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal, grant the minority owners leave to appeal the cost order, allow their cross-appeal with respect to costs, and dismiss the balance of the cross-appeal.

[21] The appellants are jointly and severally liable for the minority owners’ costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, which we fix in the all-inclusive amount of $25,000.

CCC396’s costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, in the all-inclusive amount of $15,000, shall be borne 50 percent by the appellants jointly and severally, and 50 percent by the minority owners." unquote
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#18960
Supremes refuse appeals : WINDING DOWN for DYSFUNCTION & OPPRESSION Carleton C.C. 396 2019/05/07 15:45  
Has Canada's Supreme Court permanently slammed the door shut by refusing to hear cross appeals by minority & majority groups at a troubled commercial condo in central Ottawa ?

( Decades of complex past litigation in this struggle, by now show up in 23 identifiable judicial outcomes at canlii.org. It also appears that the commercial condominium has been under forms of Administratorship since 2002.

These decisions have repeatedly reached within the statutory corporate veil to find oppression almost like U.S. HOA style but difficult "derivative remedies" sought by minority stakeholders ie not easy at all. . .

"Derivative remedies" are allowed by Ontario corporation law. But Ontario's condo legislation shields the condo universe from conventional corporation law. Again this ain't legal advice, which should only be sought & relied on from insured licensees of the Law Society of Ontario . )


Canada's top court's twin May 2/19 rejections of cross-appeals are : http://canlii.ca/t/j02cm of ONCA 195 Feb 28/18 and http://canlii.ca/t/j02cs of ONCA 342 April 9/18.

Summarizing decades of struggle for control on the way here, is not very easy.

A separate CAFCOR topic is June 2 2016 “ONCA issues 17th online judgment in 25 year struggle” https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=18656&catid=9#18656


And Gowling WLG lawyer Rod Escayola has blogged several times :

2 - June 2/16 “Liens Are Not the Only Way for Condos to Collect Arrears” http://condoadviser.ca/2016/06/liens-are-not-the-only-way-for-condos-to-collect-arrears/condo-law- blog-Ontario

1 - March 25/15 “Condo Owner Ordered to Pay $790,000 in Legal Fees” http://condoadviser.ca/2015/03/a-condo-owner-ordered-to-pay-790000-in-legal-fees/condo-law-blog- Ontario
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster