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
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT RESTRAINTS list lengthens to include M.T.C.C. # 932 v LAHRKAMP 2018/01/26 00:06  
A Toronto Superior Court judge has pre-empted an Oppression lawsuit ( & possibly more ) from Michael LAHRKAMP by declaring the longtime records access warrior a VEXATIOUS LITIGANT.

Some would consider Mr Lahrkamp's gagging in contrast to British Columbia's similar designation after a strata resident ( Mr Bea) filed FIFTY sets of failed duplicative claims against the same strata parking By-law. B.C. Court staff hilariously are said to have kept on letting BEA file despite such designation. Court clerks must lead a boring existence.

In Ontario Michael Lahrkamp has for years been exercising a Legislature-granted remedy to force transparency.

In some filings ( by contrast to B.C.'s Mr Bea ) Mr Lahrkamp has actually been successful in exercising that statutory right.

Further the latest judgment has to address that in the Lahrkamp Small Claims wars there was little talk of a vexatious litigation barrier ( although in context Deputy Judges lack such power ).

As ANNOYING & COSTLY Mr.Lahrkamp's records access filings have been to his governancers, should they be also seen in the context of hardball throttling of stakeholders or shareholders ?

Is that necessarily in the public interest if the REMEDY might be transparency . . . . . granting such records access properly ? Ontario's legislative changes indicate that a serious transparency problem has been seen by legislators, including because of Mr Lahrkamp.

An emerging pattern of hardball tolerated by lower courts ?

- Aug 2017 : triggered by lien for her unapproved frontyard window box Ottawa owner owner / lien challenger SENNEK gets ruled vexatious & ordered to undergo mental exam ! Plus her $ 763 lien challenge apparently gets ignored !

CAFCOR Directors item

- SLAPPs : Is it coincidence that SLAPPs ( Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation ) and defamation lawsuits are emerging as tempting weapons against shareholders and "Ralph Nader" type consumer kvetchers ? And even against condo / HOA / Building Scheme critics ?

Bottom Lines :

Worth reading is the latest judgment's judicial reasoning path to gate-keeping Mr Lahrkamp's future filings under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Mr. Lahrkamp is even chastised for questioning the condo auditor too, as if condo auditors even had a primary statutory duty to owners & stakeholders instead of to governancers ! He is even chastised for not getting many votes amidst a lot of toxicity. ARE SUCH EVEN VALID LINES OF ADJUDICATIVE CONSIDERATION here, especially when pondering now an abridgement of a LEGISLATED remedy targetting secrecy ?

With Mr Lahrkamp now throttled out of the gate, some lawyers may suffer reduced legal billings.

The Toronto judgment's para 87 cites that one series of Small Claims Court defences cost MTCC #932 more than $158 K. Mr Lahrkamp WON some of those. Some of his records requested were ruled valid . . .

This latest outing however hits him for what will on appeal be said to total $ 19 K of M.T.C.C. # 932's costs plus his own counsel's costs. ( See his appeal outcome below )

And bigger is that such designation puts a barrier on Mr Lahrkamp's civil right to sue the Corporation,its governancers and even its service providers.

( A recent review of this decision by lawyer Denise Lash notes - ? tongue in cheek ? - that Mr Lahrkamp is NOT throttled from suing other condo/strata corporations nor syndicats into which he may buy. I add respectfully : nor suing Building Schemes either; my own's HOA is unincorporated, requiring all 70 sets of co-owners to be individually sued if worth suing. There is also no equivalency to Florida's ch 720. )

Anyway the judge appears to have overlooked suing its suppliers of goods or other unit owners personally in personal matters. And whether possibly also suing its auditors IF such owe a professional duty not to the Corporation but to the owners. So Mr Lahrkamp's scope will not be totally extinguished.

M.T.C.C. # 932 v Lahrkamp 2018 ONSC 286 issued Jan 15 / 18

Footnote : This Forum's Search function ( top right ) discloses numerous references about Mr Lahrkamp posted over many years. ( And generally about proxy abuse. And generally about some governancers' defiances of the Legislated disclosure remedy etc ). Eg

Mr. Lahrkamp himself made several postings here years ago, but he was a rare commenter.
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
Divisional Court rejects COSTS PROPORTIONALITY CHALLENGE : $19 K on $1,500 records penalties 2018/03/16 19:08  
Hope the lobby redecoration & access battles were worth it all.

By Jan 2018 Mr Lahrkamp’s condo corp - targeted by $1,500 in Lahrkamp’s records disclosure motions - claims its defence costs in the latest series culminating in vexatious ruling - has been $ 158 K.

Mr. Lahrkamp with counsel next appealed proportionality of adverse costs award to Divisional Court.

BUT March 16/18 Divisional Court rejects Lahrkamp’s subsequent disproportionality challenge of $19 K total award against him 2 months earlier; adds $ 4, 500 more.

M.T.C.C. # 932 v Lahrkamp 2018 ONSC 1771 issued March 16/18
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
Tribunal rejects RECORDS ACCESS filing as complaint specific vexatious : M.T.C.C. # 932 v LAHRKAMP 2018/12/28 17:07  
On Nov 13/18 ONCAT Ontario's condo Tribunal rejected owner Michael Lahrkamp’s records access Tribunal complaint ( about a more recent project ) as a vexatious filing, thus snuffing whatever the merits of his current complaints.

In Jan 2018 a civil judge had ruled him - pre-empting his Oppression filings - personally a vexatious litigant despite some successes over a decade of litigations starting with lobby reno beefs .

BUT in property & civil rights aspects, Mr. Lahrkamp’s + decade long Toronto area filings & the shenanigans of B.C. by-law opponent Mr Bea's ( 50 filings duplicatively ) look arguably in sharp contrast to a single different dispute in Ottawa.

Ottawa complainant lawyer Manorama Sennek was ordered to undergo a mental exam. She was subsequently labelled a vexatious litigant. Thus was gagged a single flower box dispute & arguably voodoo fine , sorry a U.S. style charge-back from site specific governance paper.

Ms Sennek's later ONCAT filing itself got similar rejection ( the filing itself was ruled “vexatious” ) as now befalls the indefatigable Mr. Lahrkamp .

What's the takeaway from ONCAT Tribunal rejections not on basis of “personal vexatious litigant status” but complaint-specific as “vexatious filing” ?

Why waste pricey SLAPP to silence critics if such can get the stubborn ones gagged as vexatious litigants whose beefs are also gagged including in records denial ONCAT Condo Tribunal venue ? Of course won't be cheap but apparently curtails another recourse albeit non-violent . . .

1- Manorama Sennek v. C.C.C.# 116 (2018) ONCAT 4 issued June 19/18

2 – Lahrkamp v M.T.C.C. # 932 ( 2018) ONCAT 12 issued Nov 13/18
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
Hit for $ 2, 500 costs for "designation" pre-empted rejection M.T.C.C. # 932 v LAHRKAMP 2019/02/28 23:17  
Against ( historically "mixed success outcomes" S.R.L. self-represented ) records applicant Michael Lahrkamp, the Chair of ONCAT has awarded $2,500.

Its a portion of more than $21, 300 K sought by his condo corp with counsel.

Thus pre-empted a Hearing on merits, applicant Lahrkamp still gets hit for costs.

One might argue that he actually got A RESULT, albeit a pre-empted refusal to consider on merits.

Two arguable concerns may be :

1 - "We are charging you for the meal even though we refused to take your order nor listen to your request "

2 - Given also that one refused record ( which his timely request was denied ) was OWNER LIST, it appears that ONCAT thinks legislated rights deserve no remedy if an application triggers smelling or being deemed "vexatious" by the adjudicator .

Yes, it's argued that over the years Mr Lahrkamp made choices that lost his rights for good.

And that - merits heard or not - his condo corp was a winning respondent like any other which incurred costs eligible for award.

3 - At some point one option ( for some ) is to discontinue lawful channels of recourse.

Examples elsewhere include some bad scenarios. Not everyone goes away quietly . . .

Lahrkamp v M.T.C.C. # 932 ( 2019) ONCAT 4 issued Feb 20/19

xcrpted :

“ . . . [2] After considering the Users’ submissions, I found that the case was vexatious and dismissed the case without holding a hearing pursuant to s.1.41 of the Condominium Act, 1998. . . . .

[4] . . . I order costs in the amount of $2,500.00 to be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent.

. . . [8] The question to be decided by me now is whether costs should be ordered against the Applicant for bringing the case to the CAT given that the Applicant’s application was vexatious.

[12] During the early review process, the Applicant submitted that the vexatious litigant designation against a party does not prevent them from making a Request for Records under the Act nor does it prohibit them from filing an application with the CAT.

[13] In Manorama Sennek v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 116, 2018 ONCAT 4 (CanLII), the CAT found that the vexatious litigant designation does not necessarily bar a person from access to the CAT.

It is therefore not a foregone conclusion that an applicant’s case would not be permitted to proceed by the CAT.

[14] However, the Applicant’s case in this instance was not permitted to proceed because it was found to fit within the Applicant’s already established pattern of vexatious conduct, which I consider to be an “exceptional reason” for the purposes of Rule 33.1.

Further, it was an attempt to continue a dispute already determined by the courts and was brought before the CAT for an improper purpose.

[15] The filing of the Applicant’s case directly resulted in the Respondent incurring costs related to their participation in the early review process.

Accordingly, I find that an award of costs is appropriate." - unquote
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster