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
EQUITABLE CONDO LIEN rejected in creditor v creditor round #1 TREZ v WYNFORD 2015/12/29 14:41  
Round # 1 - a ‘creditor v creditor’ contest under under section 243 of Canada's B.I.A. Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act RSC 1985 ch B-3 - is lost by North Toronto commercial condo corporation M.T.C.C. # 1037.

M.T.C.C. # 1037 sought to “equitably” resurrect ( for the same debtors’ unliened historical arrears now claimed at $1.285 M ) a Condominium Act 1998 section 85 super-priority lien status.

This is a creditor v creditor battle, not a Khan-style management looting using bogus borrowing by-laws. Aside from issues of possible fraud & misrepresentation against lenders, central to the condo aspect is a pursuit of distinct private interest by a Board majority to the unlawful detriment of the M.T.C.C. #1037's interests.

It further includes at least one flat-out unlawful declaration within a Status Certificate to induce the loans, a consequence of which further subordinates the condo arrears to the lenders' rights.

Had the condo corporation prevailed in this round, the unliened historical units arrears would queue-jump for the condo corporation ahead of registered mortgages initially totalling almost $10 M. The loans are registered as security against titles to multiple units owned by a defaulting investment group ( the Waltons group ).

Factuals :

Central to each claim is the disturbing role of ousted M.T.C.C. # 1037 ex-condo President & ex-Board Chair, lawyer / realtor Norma Jean Walton.

For only indirectly related matters, she was ordered disbarred by a Law Society Tribunal on Feb 18 2015

Her multi unit-owning) borrower Walton group – having gained condo Board majority control & Presidency - switched to more pliable management that did not super-lien the dominating Waltons’ huge current condo arrears.

Her group's (concealed) arrears totalled $ 811 K at date of the March 2013 loan.

As part of lenders' prior diligence TREZ reviewed concurrent Status Certificates signed by condo president Walton herself ! Remember the property management change ?

Those Certificates illegally & falsely failed to disclose in section 5 the Walton portfolio’s common expense arrears at Certification date, a legislated absolute requirement.

The March 2013 Certificates further contained outdated 2 year old financials for 2010 but for no later periods. Walton units were not in arrears in 2010. Now what questions should there have been about financials for the subsequent 2 complete financial years ? ? Did the wordings of these Certificates purport illegally to present a snapshot of Dec 31 2010 ?

The thereafter-approved TREZ loan of $9.85 M to the Waltons, was secured by registration.

However within a year the scenario unravelled, a court-ordered condo Owners Meeting ousted the Waltons’ Board, and current common expense payments were resumed. Historical arrears are unpaid.

Creditor v Creditor Round # 1 however pits the prior registered lender TREZ et al against the condo corporation’s unliened claims to past condos’ arrears now accrued to $1.285M.

Parallel claims are underway with more to come. ( But issues such as : The condo corporation's claim to the historical arrears is otherwise intact, but because un-liened has lost super-priority unless successfully appealed. Without direct theft, is the condo corporation's loss of super-priority addressed by Directoral, Fidelity or other types of insurance ? Presumably not acting in the practice of law as condo President, how could or should Norma Jean Walton trigger law society professional coverage ? At the end of the day, what Walton assets will remain to be targetted by civil claims etc ? . .)

Summary : The registered lenders TREZ et al here survive an attempt by the condo corporation to talk the courts into "equitably resurrecting" the super-priority that Lien section 85 WOULD HAVE given to the condo corporation had the Walton group’s illegally concealed arrears been properly liened.

Minority Directors on the ousted Walton-dominated Board are chastised.

Trez v Wynford 2015 ONSC 2794 issued Dec 10 2015

ADDENDUM March 9 2016 This is now subject of Gowlings LLP article by lawyer Jocelyn Duquette falsifying-the-status-certificate/condo-law-blog-Ontario
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
Jim Davidson : bleak recovery options after liens deliberately missed : TREZ v WYNFORD 2016/06/14 18:24  
1- Bleak recovery options may be left after lien outrageously trumped by debtor Directors. These are discussed by well respected Ottawa condo lawyer Jim Davidson :
June 14 2016 J Davidson LLB ( Nelligan IO'Btrien payne

Not easy to pursue Directors personally, including the issue "which Directors ?"

2 Not here: At I & other amateurs kick around Derivative Remedy - a corporate veil-piercing shareholder remedy to pursue individual Directors. A Washington state questioner wants to pursue what he describes as 'idiot' Directors who he rages have run his HOA into the ground after he left the Board years ago . . . Doesn't look easy. ( Caution : Neither legal advice nor of Canadian application )

"(Washington state) case study in condo gone wrong"
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
Disbarment upheld : ex condo President Norma Jean Walton 2017/07/12 19:02  
1- June 28/17 Divisional Court upholds disbarment appealed by former condo President.

The disbarment grounds are a range of actions sadly consistent with her outrageous misconduct as then-President in concealing ( from lender/investors ) her own assets' arrears contrary to her duty as Status Certifier . . .

Walton v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2017 ONSC 3847

2 - What happens within organizations injured BIG TIME - by misgovernance or even by illegal misconduct in the above events - which eventually cost the stakeholders & other creditors BIG TIME ?

For example, a timely question - albeit NOT about dishonesty nor clear misconduct - for the stakeholders of Toronto's Wychwood Park Trust to start considering . . . .

Ontario's Court of Appeal has recently ruled that the Wychwood Park Trustees' basis for a NINE year litigation to seek annual voodoo fees from owners of an OFFSITE home, was in flat out contravention of the MOST BASIC real property covenant law !

The Wychwood Park Trustees' claim to contribution against their target was pursued for almost a decade in flat-out defiance of current period Appeal Court decisions and of a + 130 year old foundation of Building Scheme covenant interpretation.

Maybe worse : on dubious grounds decades of Building Scheme collections have been made against many property owners. Now will the whole Building Scheme collapse ?
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster