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:
#18883
Commercial unit ORDERED SOLD for proprietor behaviour; Peel S.C.C. # 984 v 8645361 Can Ltd & MIRZA 2018/07/17 00:20  
The onsite PERSONAL behaviour of a Malton (GTA) area self-represented condo retailer, has triggered a unit sale order & discontinuance of his venture's additional leased occupancies. Westwood Mall with major national tenants also has some small units eg 160 ft2. It is located in the Malton area of GTA NW of # 427 and Rexdale Blvd.

Illustrating the risks of "pro se" or self-representation, the co-defendant proprietor was here denied the submission of responses to defend a contempt finding for failing to comply with interim payment and personal restraint orders.

Given that finding, it also appears - appears ? - that any additional "pro se" defences by proprietor MIRZA against the specific misconduct allegations - and possibly to oppose the drastic remedy too - have effectively also been garbaged.

That's except for the rejected "I'm too unwell to defend myself" backed by a physician's letter mocked by the judge.

This judgment's wording is silent about whatever else may have been attempted raised here by Mr MIRZA eg speculatively "fair comment" about his verbals or incommensuracy of the penalty now sought, or whatsoever . . . . Or did he try arguing that the Ontario legislature's reforms might arguably have intended section 135.1 personal banishment ( for such alleged shenanigans ) instead of forced unit sale ? ( MIRZA's behaviour under s 135.1 would apparently have had to meet a standard of "oppression" - likelier tougher for his adversaries to support. ). We may NEVER know what MIRZA argued, because ruled in contempt he's effectively gagged.

So proprietor MIRZA is a slamdunk also for contempt of prior personal restraint court orders.

Issue of Defences silenced ?

The Applicant retail condo corporation applicant had managed to persuade judges to impose $ 5,500 interim payment conditions in the course of prior litigation steps.

Those interim court-imposed payments were not made, another indication of contempt & lay skillset .

The Applicant condo corporation now persuades the finding that the proprietor personally is in contempt of prior court orders, the order of prompt & compulsory unit sale, and imposition of $ 25 K in partial legals TO BE PAID PERSONALLY BY THE PROPRIETOR.

Although the alleged misbehaver is NOT TECHNICALLY the unit owner of record corporation, the costs here ordered are thus NOT some sort of a "straw debt" subject to the whimsy of corporate winding down without direct consequences to Mr MIRZA personally . . .

MORE THAN A PERSONAL BANISHMENT

For commercial units, compulsory unit sales have been virtually unknown in Ontario for personal shenanigans, boat rocking or whatever merely personal interactions of owners.

Residential total unit sales have been ordered in at least a dozen instances across the country including disruption by an autistic child ( Jordison BC. ), vexatious litigation ( Mr Bea's whacky & vexatious by-law war B.C. ) and a caregiver's misbehaviour ( Carleton CC 348 v CHEVALIER 2014). ( This judgment cites only Korolekh 2010, Webb 2011 & Jordison ( 2013 B.C.) as its roadmap ).

Recent ( Ontario ) condo law amendments introduced a subset of personal removal orders for OPPRESSIVE behaviour under section 135(1) "Order for permanent removal of person".

This decision however orders the sale of a corporate unit and instead hangs its hat on section 134.

Recognizing the risk of any possible "straw buyer", the unit sale order is ordered completed "to a bona fide purchaser for value by October 12, 2018".

This of course is NOT legal advice :

However this eventually unfolds, condo or Building Scheme beefers need to keep it civil. That's even if their brains are being illegally liened out. Self-represented litigants already have a tough row to hoe without making verbal or other attacks against ANYONE. Mr MIRZA didn't reach this point by being sweet to management.

Again also : Pick battles VERY carefully. Minimize conspicuousness by obtaining the support of other stakeholders. Hire competent legal advice. Consider making a deal to avoid a world of pain later . . .

Peel S.C.C. # 984 v 8645361 Canada Limited and Ahmed Mirza 2018 ONSC 4339 issued July 13/18 http://canlii.ca/t/ht020
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster