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:
#18850
PROXY CRITIC relieved of $ 77.5 K costs; some beefs VALIDATED - WU v P.S.C.C # 826 et al 2018/04/10 11:47  
Almost SEVEN YEARS after Paul Wu's complaints - some valid - about proxy irregularities involving his condo corporation's 2011 Directoral election, a civil judge has :

confirmed the validity of SOME of those proxy beefs,

struck down $ 77.5 K in LEGAL COSTS held over Mr Wu's head by the condo corporation as a price of the corporation consenting to discontinuance offered by plaintiff Wu about the longpast election's beefs, and

effectively discontinued the dispute.

A textbook of some of the worst aspects of owner self-governance, aggravated by hardball punishment threats.

Looks credibly like these now-overthrown legal costs may well have been used to try to coerce boat-rockers, and - worse - would be backed by lien threats !

xcrpted :

[3] On January 20, 2012 the Plaintiff was successful in obtaining a court order to produce and preserve the proxies.

There were certainly some irregularities and concerns about the vote, although it may well be that they could not justify setting aside the election. For example : . . .

[4] The Plaintiff did a service to the Condominium in pointing out irregularities.

One would think that the Condominium would want to look into these.

Even if they did not amount to grounds for setting aside the election, the Condominium clearly had an interest in preventing irregularities in the future and attempting to determine responsibility for any forged proxies.

On the evidence I have, the Condominium did nothing to address the concerns raised by the Plaintiff.

[5] The Condominium did take what I think was a high-handed approach to dealing with the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff and like-minded owners canvassed other owners seeking to obtain evidence relevant to the action.

The Condominium took the position that this breached its declaration as it amounted to conduct which obstructed, interfered with, injured or annoyed other owners.

The Plaintiff was warned that if he did not agree in writing to desist, the matter would be referred to the solicitors for the Condominium.


Effectively, the Plaintiff was threatened with legal action . . ."

Wu v. P.S.C.C. # 826 et al 2018 ONSC 2027 issued March 28/18 http://canlii.ca/t/hrcpp
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster