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
York CC #41 v SCHNEIDER: OPPRESSION ruling threatens expulsion/forced sale - hygienics 2015/07/02 21:54  
Will ‘ruled-oppressive’, non-responding, hygiene-defying scofflaws be hit with sale/expulsion order for obstruction short of compliance ? C Jaglowitz represents YCC # 41

So this is what should be congesting civil courts ? Presumably public health officials – unmentioned - got nowhere.

Madam Justice Brown rules as outright “oppressive”, the denial /obstruction of access to inspect & remedy health dangers & nuisance odours.

But she declines condo corporation's motion to immediately order judicial expulsion / forced unit sale for what she finds is the scofflaws' failure to meaningfully comply with an actual prior court order.

Madam Justice Brown dangles expulsion possibility, but scofflaws are not in court to hear that (succumbed to their own hygienics ? ).

Access denials may become part of a wide range of condo/HOA disputes with issues of power imbalances , management competence etc. But so can issues of capacity and - more importantly - public health of other residents.

York CC #41 v Schneider et al 2015 ONSC 3919 issued June 25 2015
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
Are these unrecoverable unit access costs despite section 134 ? : bed bugs 2015/07/06 21:49  
2 year Ottawa struggle gets only limited court order to enter and spray ( de-hoarding for spraying )

Carleton CC 25 v Eagan gets only 60 % substantial indemnity $9700 out of $16,200 Full Indemnity to get a bedbug spray unit access order, but Ottawa judge limits it against non attending hoarder / bed bug breeder issued July 3/15 )
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
Good money after bad ? Judge refuses costs in rearguard action 17 months after compromised access 2017/06/21 16:32  
Getting municipal intervention may sometimes be useless, but should civil courts be congested with this ?

Some will wonder : Is it tougher & costlier to halt health dangers than to expel the weak ? And where’s the municipal health department ?

Will a condo tribunal be quicker . . . cheaper . . . quieter ? Those living near a stubborn health risk must hope so.

June 2017 : 19 MONTHS after the access defiers conceded & allowed an allegedly compromised unit access & pesticide treatment, a further rearguard legal action fails to get a contempt of court order against the owners. ( ? to platform 134( 5 )additional cost to obtain compliance ?)

Pesticide documents held ambiguous.

YCC #41 by now has abandoned attempts to get unit sale/expulsion under the outgoing Condo Act.

But will there be more opportunities upcoming ?

For now both parties to suck up their own fees & costs. Not cheapies here with full day formal trial undergone.

York CC #41 v Schneider 2017 ONSC 3709 issued June 15 2017
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster