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
T.S.C.C. # 2395 obtains a RESTRAINING ORDER against an owner 2017/02/21 16:21  
(restored Feb 21/17/text difference possible. Number of 'views' is also understated )

A management dilemma.

A judicial dilemma.

( Because of a party's potential health issues, this item voluntarily deletes the respondent's name. )

Condo corporations are also workplaces. But did an * un-described female owner’s alleged verbal threat, an alleged resulting change of workplace protocol & some bizarre but harmless alleged behaviours, constitute CREDIBLE enough ‘urgency’ & risk, sufficient to justify an interlocutory Restraining Order and $16,600 costs award ?

( * by "undescribed" : Was the subject owner XXX a mild geriatric ? a biker chick with tatoos ? How realistic a danger would she present so as to justify a Restraining Order albeit interim ? )

And did XXX's alleged behaviour justify a declaration that the owner’s alleged misconduct to a staff-member constitutes workplace harassment ?

Would allegedly napping with a table atop her in the common elements suggest instead a prior need for a competency hearing ? Or randomly knocking at strangers’ doors looking for “Justin” ? Maybe.

Undefended by non-attending condo owner XXX but with an OPGT counsel noted in attendance, Madam Justice J.T. Akbarali grants interlocutory personal Restraining Order & $ 16,600 costs described as awarded on a “partial indemnity” basis.

Also hears - but declines - a correct & commendable application by highly respected J Fine LLB to “consider’ need for a competency hearing in context of procedurals including triggering an OPGT, for owner XXX.

If non-responder XXX next triggers factual contempt of the order without any findings as to mental competency, should her equity be eaten alive instead of getting her some professional assistance IF that is the wider need ?

TSCC # 2395 v XXX 2016 ONSC 8000 issued Dec 20/16

Lawyer Denise Lash’s article Feb 16/17 “Condominium Corporation Seeks Court Order Requiring Mental Examination of Unit Owner” of-unit-owner/
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
T.S.C.C. # 2395 obtains a RESTRAINING ORDER against an owner 2017/02/21 16:26  
1 - Neither the judge nor the public appear in a strong position to determine whether or not the non-responding owner XXX is a credible threat of ANY kind.

Of unestablished age & physicals, XXX allegedly made verbal threats & napped in the common elements with a table atop her etc.

Given this & that XXX neither responded nor attended to defend, how further credible then was it in para 22 to conclude "there is NO evidence" her mental condition is germane to triggering an OPGT but now triggers instead a $16,600 award to suck her unit's equity ?

Triggering mental assessments willy nilly would have a downside for justice, but the owner's not accused of harbouring pitbulls nor pursuing a clear cogent serious beef.

2 - Not a comfortable judicial chore. Madame Justice J.T. Akbarali was appointed to the civil bench last year.

She was one of the Lerners LLP team which obtained a Court of Appeal decision upholding Occupiers Liability for a badly injured, minor age joyrider car-thief against Rankins (smalltown Ontario) Garage and others.

( J.J. v. C.C., 2016 ONCA 718 718 issued Oct 3 2016 )
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
XXX v Carleton C. C. # 116, 2017 rejects a different owner's appeal against exam 2017/02/22 22:48  
FIGHTING A CONDO LIEN a SRL self-represented litigant owner - not the individual above - fails in an attempt to persuade Ontario's Court of Appeal to extend deadline to appeal the lower court order that she be mentally assessed.


" . . . [5] When the moving party ( SRL owner ) brought her underlying application, the respondent ( C.C.C. #116) raised concerns about the moving party’s mental health and sought an order under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, for a mental examination of the moving party by a health practitioner.

The respondent’s original lien claim was only $763.14, but its legal costs by the time of the application were over $18,000.00.

The respondent was concerned that a litigation guardian should be appointed for the moving party. . .
. . . [19] Accordingly, the motion to extend time is dismissed, without costs in all the circumstances of this case. "

YYY v. Carleton C. C. # 116, 2017 ONCA 154 (CanLII) issued Feb 21/17
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
LIEN DISPUTE MORPHS INTO concurrent INCAPACITY dispute OTTAWA 2017/03/16 09:44  
The previous comment refers to what started as A LIEN DISPUTE challenged by a SLR self represented Ottawa owner.

Xcprt Mr Justice Beaudoin :

" . . . [4] The dispute between ( Ms YYY ) and CCC No. 116 arose out of a lien that CCC No.116 had registered against ( Ms YYY's ) property.

The Respondent was seeking to recover the costs of removing a frame around Ms. ( YYY's ) raised garden bed from her front yard to her backyard.

An earlier Small Claims Court proceeding that advanced several tort claims against a number of defendants disputed the Respondent’s entitlement to remove her garden frame and to collect the costs of same.

[5] Ms. ( YYY) brought this application seeking to discharge the lien. The parties initially appeared before me and the Respondent obtained an adjournment to file responding material on its undertaking not to take any further enforcement proceedings until the Applicant’s application could be heard on its merits.

The parties appeared before Justice Kershman on February 19, 2016. At that time, it appears that the Applicant sought a further adjournment and Justice Kershman proceeded to hear the oral motion presented by the Respondent seeking an assessment of the Applicant’s capacity. . . ."

2- An Ottawa lawyer's article adds significant additional detail & also comments on the separate Toronto dispute.

Self-represented litigants should consider this a cautionary tale but the costs & complexity incurred by management & governancers suggest it may NOT AT ALL be just a smear campaign.

"What can Condo Corporations do When Owners Display Signs of Mental Incapacity ?" by Ottawa lawyer R Escayola (Gowlings WLG) March 14/17 article with far more details condo-law-blog-Ontario
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster