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:
#18986
LIEN withstands SHORT- NOTICE COMPUTATION challenges; LAWYER’S unit CAN BE SEIZED- CCC 476 v Wong 2019/08/02 23:19  
Not a legal opinion.

( update April 3/20 : Amidst COVID-19 suspensions, lien challenger/lawyer XXX fails to get ONCA Ontario's Court of Appeal to postpone considering execution of July 2019 summary judgment rendered against him despite some interesting defence arguments last year. ONCA now orders owner/lawyer XXX's appeal to proceed by remote adjudication of written submissions. Carleton C.C. # 476 v Wong 2020 ONCA 244 issued April 3/20 http://canlii.ca/t/j6bsq )

* *

3 and a half years after Ottawa's Carleton Condo Corporation C.C.C. # 476 filed a Statement of Claim to get payment of arrears or to exercise mortgagee remedies allowed by Ontario Condo Act 1998’s s 85 under a Lien for arrears issued Jan 31/14, it finally gets summary judgment for action.

The judgment strikes down defences that include claiming the Lien ( and therefor the drastic mortgagee remedies sought here & additional charges collectible ) is allegedly invalidated by “short notice” !

( ? Shockingly ? ) the defender is longtime owner Toronto lawyer XXX whose refusals to pay are said to have generated SIX previous LIENS onto title of his 7th floor unit.

It is /was a unit in a spartan-looking 9 storey building just west of “Mechanicsville” at 35 Holland Ave just south of Tunneys Pasture civil service complex. Now presumably it's more feasible to action the Lien amidst condo demand in gentrifying "Wellington West Village" etc ).

Justice Marc R. Labrosse strikes down lawyer–owner XXX‘s central objection alleging the Lien is invalidated by short-Notice to Owner.

Rules that the requirement is NOT ( TEN ) CLEAR DAYS separating mailing date & consequential date on which Lien would be earliest be filed if not pre-empted by full payments.

Ruling cites :

1 - express wording of Condo Act 1998’s s 85 (4 )
Lien upon default
85
. . Notice to owner
(4) At least 10 days before the day a certificate of lien is registered, the corporation shall give written notice of the lien to the owner whose unit is affected by the lien. 1998, c. 19, s. 85 (4); AND

2 - Mildly obscure Legislation Act 2006 S.O. 2006 chapter 21 Schedule F

( section 89 ) Computation of time

" . . . . . Number of days between events
(3) A reference to a number of days between two events excludes the day on which the first event happens and includes the day on which the second event happens, even if the reference is to “at least”or “not less than” a number of days. "

( Note : It is theoretically possible that the narrower formula derived from the above - in certain cases - could actually allow the owner in arrears MORE THAN 10 clear days for pre-empting the Lien
. Respectfully it isn't necessarily anti-debtor, but this of course ain't legal advice either. Such interpretation better derives from a legislated source arguably few might have recognized before this recent judgment . . . )

Carleton C.C. # 476 v Wong 2019 ONSC 4207 issued July 10/19 http://canlii.ca/t/j1kbb
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#19067
ONCA rejects lawyer-owner's SHORT NOTICE & VICARIOUS TENANTING claims; free to seize CCC 476 v Wong 2020/04/26 17:11  
Not legal advice, as usual

Amidst covid-19 deaths & postponement of non-urgent adjudication activity, an ONCA Ontario Court of Appeal panel has rejected a lawyer/owner's appeal against an upheld LIEN ( lucky # 7th lien reportedly ). Such leaves the door open to the condo corporation's mortgage-style remedies including Power of Sale.

ONCA here rejects lawyer XXX’s computation & vicarious claims w.r.t. a former Superintendent. Confirms that Ontario's somewhat obscure Legislation Act 2006 trumps lawyer XXX's “CLEAR DAYS” formula.

And his accompanying vicarious ( negligent private tenanting ) claim involving an ex-Superintendent, is again ruled both untimely & unproven.

If lawyer XXX wants to go further, Canada's Supreme Court has been rejecting well over 90 % of leave applications.

And thankfully civil appeals to the Judicial Committee of Britain's Privy Council were abolished in 1949 . . .

Carleton C.C. # 476 v Wong (2020) ONCA 263 issued April 22/20 http://canlii.ca/t/j6lqf

postcript June 11/20

ONCA awards further $ 16.8 K all inclusive in this appeal against lawyer XXX : Carleton C.C. # 476 v Wong (2020) ONCA 363 issued June 9/20 http://canlii.ca/t/j8597
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#19214
Court hears same-name lawyer defending thrice-liened TORONTO client; SOME SIMILAR COUNTER-CLAIMS 2021/04/23 10:42  
Not legal advice. Whether or not the same Toronto lawyer Mr. XXX ? . . . Personal identifiers are again suppressed in this analysis except where the necessary judicial citation is an identifier in the public realm .

In Toronto an ONSC Ontario Superior Court of Justice Court hears same-name lawyer defending thrice-liened TORONTO client with disturbingly similar cycles of COUNTER-CLAIMS & similar defences. As with lawyer XXX's own arrears war over his Ottawa condo unit those are raised at 11th hour in the face of imminent Power of Sale compliancing procedures .

For the Toronto client owner's latest cycle of condo arrears at a GTA unit there are somewhat similar rope-a dope defences against imminent Power of Sale for liened “full costs” ( $ 56, 300 as eventually awarded ).

Is this genuinely a client's cashflow problem ? Or a brazen strategy of "pushing the limit" ? Accompanied by bizarre & unsupported allegations of employee dishonesty or incompetence ? Looks to slope-shoulder "additional" collection costs legislated because unfair to burden upon the general ownership ?

Whatever, in Toronto the judge cites recurrent cycleS - ! plural ! - of defaults & liens just reaching imminent Power of Sale stages. 11th hour hardball rejected counterclaims include unit damage and even dishonesty by onsite super and PMC. Those are soundly rejected by the judge. :

M.T.C.C # 868 v Pang (2021) ONSC 2737 issued April 13/21 https://canlii.ca/t/jff7g

xcrpt : . . . [11] First, this is not the first time the Condominium has had to pursue Ms. YYY for unpaid common expenses. Ms. YYY has been the owner of her unit since June 2005. She has repeatedly failed to pay her common expenses. . . .

[14] Ms. YYY again chose not to resolve the matter when she received the statement of claim.

Rather, she issued a statement of defence and counterclaim in which she asserted that she had paid her common expenses to the Condominium’s property manager.

She also claimed that the Condominium’s superintendent damaged her floors and furniture while cleaning up after a flood that she says was caused by improper maintenance of the pipes by the Condominium. . . .

[17] . . . . Ms. YYY’s counsel acknowledged during submissions on this motion that there was no legal basis for Ms. YYY to believe that she could withhold her common expenses and use any damages she might recover on her counterclaim to off-set what she owed.

I find that Ms. YYY’s defence was without any merit and was simply a strategy to delay paying what she was statutorily required to pay.

[18] Ms. YYY chose to withhold her common expense payments and vigorously defend against the Condominium’s claim. While litigants should not be penalized for reasonably defending against the case, Ms. YYY' s defence was devoid of merit. . . . " - unquote
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster