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:
#18756
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT RULING after dispute buries owners in AVALANCHE OF LEGAL COSTS- SENNEK v CCC 116 2017/08/29 00:16  
A $ 763 condo Lien challenge & veneer of ‘trivials’ in dispute, triggered an ongoing avalanche of litigation & institutional complaints even after being dismissed in March 2017.

( Had there been A.D.R. before police-supervised relocation of the Lien-challenger's eastend Ottawa FRONTYARD flower box ? Was the alleged mis-governance challenged electorally by condo owners ? Who knows ?

Subject to very tight upfront timeframes, Ontario's condo law amendments might have let this unfold cheaper. See also : "Will LIEN CHALLENGE CHANGES disadvantage owners targetted by condo liens ?"
http://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=18693&catid=2 )

Carleton C.C..# 116 is a 213 unit townhouse community in east end Ottawa ( east of Blair Road ). Whatever's in the governance documents, its online owners manual forbids exterior changes without prior Board approval particularly as to the common element streetside.

1 - Without ultimate adjudication of her beefs' merits, the March 2017 decision strikes them for the lien challenger's defiance of an Interlocutory Order obtained by CCC #116 that she undergo a form of mental capacity examination !

Feb 21/17 ONCA had rejected her hopscotch appeal to strike down or amend that Interlocutory Order.

2 - Subsequently in Aug 2017 SRL self-represented litigant / trained lawyer / condo owner /Lien-challenger Ms Sennek has next found herself declared a VEXATIOUS LITIGANT & in breach of court order to undergo 'capacity to litigate' examination.

By now, just defending the $763 Lien has had to trigger a whopping $100,000 in SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS from the owners generally !

3 - A prior judgment purported to Order & also roll into a Condo Unit Lien the condominium corporation's costs of obtaining a capacity examination by a psychologist if refused by the then-Plaintiff Lien challenger Sennek. Add + $2,400

The August 2017 Endorsement has just further purported to order that as plaintiff C.C.C. #116 will be able to roll into the Condo Lien the further costs of having the Lien Challenger successfully declared a Vexatious Litigant.

Are both such unit-specific "additions' to unit debt - despite judicial blessing - “too remote” for subsection 134 (5) Adding Costs to obtain Compliance Order as legislated ?

4 - Will lawyer Sennek appeal the drastic nature of the remedy now imposed to squash whatever her specific beefs against C.C.C. #116, without apparent appellate consideration of the specifics ?

Just for starters to appeal some sort of 'inherent' or implied / discretionary judicial power that arguably misuses the validly legislated scope of Ontario CONDO LIENS ?

AND challenging the commensurate legality of quashing her attack on the Lien because she is held to have declined a form of mental exam in Canada in 2017

5 - No more filings nor appeals ?

Being now formally designated a Vexatious Litigant ( see Sec 140 of Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43 https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html ) Ms Sennek may ( ? ) have been barred also from appealing her existing filings without judicial approval.

One can only speculate how this may impede her professionally in seeking LSUC membership and potentially working as a lawyer.

Will this particular lien-challenger / Womens Rights advocate & researcher / trained lawyer, now go quietly into the night ?

Or will she seek to continue appealing what she has already filed ?

Watch for possible civil liberties attentions . . . .

* * *

The ROAD TO VEXATIOUS LITIGANT DESIGNATION onto Ms Sennek :

Madam Justice Liza Sheard March 2017 Sennek v Carleton CC #116 9 ( dismissing Ms. Sennek's “Lien Application” & “Small Claims Action” on stated grounds of "has failed to comply with the interlocutory orders made against her in the Lien Application" ) :

" . . .. . . [14] numerous court appearances; the allegations made by Sennek against CCC 116, its directors, and its lawyers; the claim brought by Sennek against CCC 116’s lawyers ; numerous complaints to the LSUC; the complaint to the Privacy Commissioner, etc.

. . . at its core, this is a dispute over the pruning of a tree, the installation of a flowerbox and the width of a parking space . . "

. . . [19] Although she is not presently licenced in Ontario, with her legal background, it would be fair and reasonable to consider that Sennek is a lawyer, not a lay person.

[20] the endorsement of Justice Kershman chronicled the other actions taken by Sennek, all of which led him to make an order for her to be assessed for her ability to understand information relevant to making litigation decisions and to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of a decision in the Lien Application and Small Claims Action under section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 because of “grave concerns as to Ms. Sennek’s ability to conduct this matter and the Small Claims Court Action.”

[21] it is clear that she has consciously and deliberately refused to comply with the orders. . .

[22] I accept Sennek’s assertions that she is intelligent, educated, and trained in the law. . . .

Her behaviour in the Lien Application and Small Claims Action has led CCC 116 to incur enormous legal fees.

At the hearing of this motion, counsel for CCC 116 advised that the fees are approximately $96,000.00 and that the CCC 116 condominium owners have been subject to a special levy of $100,000.00 to cover those costs.

Should costs be awarded against Sennek and added to the lien claim registered against the Sennek Unit, there would be insufficient equity to cover the value of her mortgage.

For that reason, the mortgagee of the Sennek Unit, XXXXX XXXX of Canada, has sought intervener ( sic ) status to allow it to make costs submissions at the hearing set for August 18, 2017. . . ." unquote

* * *
Madam Justice Liza Sheard Aug 24/17 Carleton CC #116 v Sennek ( granting “Vexatious Litigant Application”) :

"1] On August 18, 2017 . . . . after hearing submissions from Sennek, I also granted the orders sought by CCC 116 to declare Sennek a vexatious litigant, with written reasons to follow. These are the reasons.

. . . Vexatious Litigant Application

Disposition: Sennek is a Vexatious Litigant

[31] For the above reasons, I conclude that CCC 116 had established that each of the other six characteristics of a vexatious litigant exist here and that Sennek, and all the various names she has used as referenced above, should be declared a vexatious litigant and that the Orders sought in paragraphs 1.(a) and (b) of CCC 116’s Notice of Application was granted on August 18, 2017.

Costs
[32] As the successful party, CCC 116 is entitled to its costs of the Motion and of the Application. The amount of those costs, any interest that might be payable, and CCC 116’s entitlement to have those costs added to Sennek’s common expenses and secured under the Condominium Lien, registered to the title of Sennek’s unit were addressed by the parties at the costs hearing before me on August 18, 2017.

My decision on costs for this and the related proceedings and will be dealt with by separate endorsement. " - unquote

The judgments/Orders/Endorsements include :

Sennek v Carleton CC # 116 2017 ONCA 154 issued Feb 21/17 http://canlii.ca/t/gxltr

Sennek v Carleton CC # 116 2017 ONSC 2036 issued March 31/17 http://canlii.ca/t/h35md

Carleton CC # 116 v Sennek 2017 ONSC 5016 issued Aug 24/17 http://canlii.ca/t/h5md1
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#18757
Will hardball defence boomerang ? : SENNEK v CCC 116 2017/08/30 16:43  
In March 2017 Ms Sennek's beefs about the Condo Lien & management etc were dismissed on grounds that she was being held to HAVE REFUSED TO UNDERGO A FORM OF COURT-ORDERED MENTAL CAPACITY EXAMINATION persuaded during her attempts to litigate.

In February Ontario's Court of Appeal had refused her hopscotch Motion to set aside that Order.

And so . .

Valid or not, her condo civil claims apparently WILL NOT GET ADJUDICATED on appeal, being now struck down for breach of this interlocutory condition that the defence was able to extract from the Ottawa judicial environment 'Continuance is predicted to "worsen" the scenario.'

March 31/17 : .... [27] Rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 1990, Reg. 194 provides that where a party fails to comply with an interlocutory order, in addition to any other sanction provided by the rules, the court may stay the proceeding; dismiss the party’s proceeding; or make such other order as is just. . .

[29] The facts in this case are similar to those before the court in Baradaran v. Tarion Corp., 2015 ONSC 7892 (CanLII). . . .

[30] Similar to this case, in Baradaran the plaintiff was an experienced user of the civil justice system. . . .

[33] Based on the materials before me, I am satisfied that, as in Baradaran, if the Lien Application and Small Claims Actions continue, the situation will worsen and that this case cries out for a dismissal under rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, I grant the relief sought by CCC 116 and dismiss the within application as well as the Small Claims Action. "

- Madam Justice Sheard in Sennek v Carleton CC # 116 2017 ONSC 2036 issued March 31/17 http://canlii.ca/t/h35md
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster