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:
#18967
GAGGING & 'beyond purposes' defences FAIL RECORDS WITHOLDERS: Benjamin v PEEL SCC # 1008 2019/05/24 14:22  
Not legal advice.

May 13/19 A Condo tribunal decision lost by records with-holders, has shone renewed light on what is arguably the sort of abuses attempted addressed by the Legislature. Hadn't at least lip-service been given to consumers/property & civil rights ?

But old habits appear to die hard when a Board feels under attack

The adjudication shows gagging attempts / non-disclosure conditions and attempts to resurrect “ not a statutory purpose” refusals heard for decades. [/b]

The access deniers are held to bear – and here fail to meet - onus to disprove self-declared lawful purposes of the records request.

The outcome shines light on attempts by the respondent condo corp., to gag & trying to impose unilateral non-disclosure prohibitions ! As in “: we have a right to impose conditions including effectively ‘Don’t make us look bad “ ! If we judge you disruptive, then we have a right to refuse your request".

Alleged disruptors don't have a statutory right to records ? Even the hardball punishments of some past dissenters didn't go that far ?

Deniers are cited to have disclosed defence costs of $ 24, 400 already & will additionally suck up the $1200 awarded here to the S.R.L. self represented records applicant. ( $ 700 costs & $500 penalty ).

The adjudication expressly authorizes the successful Applicant to withhold from common expenses if corp defies the outcome. Must understand how some governancers think.

Amongst the complainant's alleged mischief ! :

[17] These unaudited reports were later found to have been distributed to condo owners and tenants during an unsanctioned and non-Board approved meeting which appeared to be led by the Respondent.

As feared, the distribution of the unaudited reports caused confusion and mixed feelings toward the Board . . . .

While there is no dispute that these unaudited financial reports were indeed distributed, the Applicant’s position appears that someone else could have distributed these reports and he did not do so. . . ."

( S.R.L. ) Benjamin v PEEL S.C.C. # 1008 http://canlii.ca/t/j0c7g issued May 13/19
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster