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
SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT held OPPRESSION : McCarthy Place retirement condos (Stratford) 2019/10/03 22:20  
The controlling majority interest group of McCarthy Place ( "retirement condominium" corporation in Stratford Ontario ) has been held by Superior Court to have oppressed minority owners.

What constituted the violation of the Ontario Condominium Act's Section 135 ( Oppression Remedy ) ?

In flat out contravention of both the Declaration & relevant by-law, the majority related companies ( 113 units ) imposed on the victim minority owners ( 11 units ) , certain occupant service payments, while exempting a very substantial number of its own units.

Not merely "technical" fouls, the effect of the deliberate contraventions gets held to render less competitive the costs for retiror tenants passed along to occupy the minority owners’ units.

The controlling majority's contraventions effectively created an “uneven playing field” of occupancy charges required by both Declaration & by-law to be contracted upon retirement age unit occupants - whether tenants or owners.

Consequently it's not hard to understand that MONTHLY with as much as $1,000 or more to be "saved", retirement tenants would have powerful motivation to endlessly migrate to the majority group's units. That's if discounts or exemptions could be obtained . . . .


McCarthy Place is a 124 UNIT residential condominium corporation subject to Ontario's Condominium Act 1998.

The corporation & occupancy of each unit however is said also subject to Ontario's Retirement Homes Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 11..

113 of McCarthy Place's 124 units are owned by the service-delivering majority group. Its own employees hold two of the three seats on the Board of Directors. As a "condo corporation" McCarthy Place is also managed by the majority.

Most - if not all - of the 124 units are occupied not by owners but by senior-age tenants relying on a Declaration-required menu of service payments for services also delivered by the majority group's corporately-linked entities. Express service payment contracts are cited to be Declarationed without any units being exempted .

It's "residential for profit". The "service payments" eg household/meals/nursing presence are actually NOT condo common expenses even though expressly set within the Declaration and made mandatory for each unit.

A conventional condo audit might NOT contemplate any service revenues / discounts ? Or should it here ?

The judgment cites some MONTHLY service & occupancy bottom line bills above $ 5 K .


The litigation process finally forced the majority to disclose the pattern of Declaration & By-law violating exemptions.

Testimony suggested a bizarre belief that the Declaration could be over-riden if otherwise empty units had to be tenanted using discounting or exemptions . . .

The judgment further rejects a majority's defence that included that mere violations are not Oppression unless done in "Bad Faith".

Not so, rules this judge after reviewing some oppression biggies from Canada's Supreme Court ( BCE ) & one of Ontario's commercial condo oppression precedents ( Walia ).

Some loose ends left by levelling the playing field

To remedy the oppression, will some - ? half ? - of the oppressive majority's discount-enjoying retiror-occupants now face steep increases of as much as $ 1,000 monthly ?

OR if unable to pay, will some have to move & where & when ? Not always easy at that age amidst health issues & usual scarcity of affordable senior care homes . . .

Or conversely will the Declaration be amended to exempt the units of the oppressed minority owners ?

The judgment is silent as to the impacts ( on existing occupants ) of howsoever restoring a uniform / level playing field, which arguably the oppressors should have expected to eventually arrive . . .

The judgment is well worth a read :

Siemon v. Perth S.C.C. ( # 39 ) 2019 ONSC 5576 issued Sep 27/19
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
ONCA upholds OPPRESSION CRITERIA : majority's SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT ( McCarthy Place ) 2020/08/11 17:57  
Not legal advice as usual.

1 - ONCA Ontario's Court of Appeal has just upheld a lower court finding of section 135 OPPRESSION under Ontario's Condominium Act 1998

It tweaks the minority investors' lower court victory only to remove a loose end noted above - that grand-fathering will occur for existing retiror tenant occupants in situ.

ONCA here confirms the lower court's Oppression analysis - rejecting the majority oppressors' argument that BAD FAITH ALSO HAS TO BE PROVEN TO TRIGGER AN OPPRESSION REMEDY.

Aug 10/20 ONCA Siemon et al v. Perth S.C.C. ( # 39 ) 2020 ONCA 503

2 Does this definitively now answer : Does BAD FAITH also have to be proven to trigger an OPPRESSION REMEDY ?

ONCA's McCarthy Place confirmation just released ( apparently that a heavier BAD FAITH burden DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PROVEN ), arrives a little too late for the plaintiff ex-President seeking a Court Order to halt the sale of Hamilton's Sandyford Place.

That Hamilton termination has apparently stalled for other reasons - see )

In that earlier Hamilton lower court judgment rejecting an Oppression remedy, the text of the lower court appears to have applied the BAD FAITH BURDEN against the plaintiff :

“ . . . . [44] Several principles can be gleaned from this passage.

Oppressive conduct requires a finding of bad faith. The focus is ultimately on the reasonable expectation of the owners. The analysis on reasonable expectations will center on the arrangement between the parties and whether the impugned conduct violates an applicant’s reasonable expectations of that arrangement. However, regard must be given to whether the impugned conduct is an attempt to balance competing interests. . . .” - unquote from MacDonald v. Wentworth C.C. # 96 2020 ONSC 1048 issued Feb 20/20
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster