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:
#17882
Condo Corp # 1122235 v Surbey CONDO POSSEE unsaddled by Alberta court 2013/12/24 00:41  
Ontario condo beefers have at least 6 to 8 recourses in Ontario's Condo Act 1998, about which they should ask a competent, insured LSUC member condo lawyer.

Thought instead of a class action ( against the target ) like those who dared take on Ontario's nickel industry ?
An Alberta court has just rejected an application for certification of a class proceeding under Alberta's Class Proceedings Act, SA 2003 c C-16.5 . That court cites and qualifies Ontario precedents.

This ALBERTA condo possee however gets thrown out the saloon door (without prejudice), but not until after some interesting comments by lower court Associate Chief Justice JD Rooke.

( Background : 498 unit Ft McMurray ALTA quartet of (res) complexes – converted & later amalgamated, now collectively referred to as “River Park Glen”. Plaintiffs apply unsuccessfully for class proceedings certification under Alta law alleging “extreme” mismanagement, defamation, neglect, safety violations etc )

Associate Chief Justice J. D. Rooke :

[2] This is the type of action which normally would be ideal as a class proceeding under the Act; namely, a condominium development that has, at best, soured into what appears to be an operational, habitable, management and investment mess.

..., Douglas Age ("Age") the proposed Representative Plaintiff for this class proceeding, has chosen to join his pleadings with those of one of the management companies, On-Site Solutions Inc. (On-Site). . . . putting On-Site and the class together, in all the circumstances, is a recipe for a litigation disaster.

[3] The proposed Representative Plaintiff (Age) has failed to identify discrete common questions of fact and common questions of law.

Further, Age is not adequately informed to properly instruct Counsel and there is some doubt whether he is acting solely in the best interests of the proposed class.

He has not presented sufficient evidence of a rational connection between the proposed class, the causes of action advanced and the proposed common issues.

[4] Ordinarily, class proceedings might be the appropriate means for condominium unit owners to litigate claims of mismanagement.

That does not mean the class proceedings here should be certified. Some proceedings that are less than optimal can be made to work.

However, the class proceedings as presently proposed in this case are fundamentally flawed. It is not up to the Court to fix that.

[5] Should the pleadings be amended to remove On-Site as a Plaintiff and the other shortcomings identified below corrected, Age, or preferably some other proposed representative plaintiff who is better informed, may re-apply for certification..."


Condo Corp # 1122235 v SURBEY 2013 ABQB 722 issued Dec 6/13 http://canlii.ca/t/g2ddd
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster