Again not a legal opinion. This topic is under construction.
A Toronto judge has issued an OPPRESSION finding against a condo corporation for getting caught carrying out the sort of widespread abuse of the CONDO LIEN REMEDY substantially ignored or shockingly somewhat facilitated by the Act-reform outcomes.
Without a prior express legislative platform such as the Ontario
Condominium Act 1998's sections 92, 98, 105 or 134,
the abuse loaded more than $ 25 K in buckshee, unit-specific, merely Declaration created "chargebacks" or so-called "indemnifications" onto the title to the victim's unit. ( Some would argue they actually are fines. Or that they bizarrely even defy the hierarchy of jurisdiction topped by legislature & the courts ! Or that the practice is at best dubious hardball compliance somehow claimed legal for one private civil disputant to punish another ! )
Then the lieners moved to sell the unit out from under the victim.
The "chargebacks" were derived from
civil demand letters from the corporation's lawyers - instead of self-help vigilante remedies like just shooting a Rule-defying dog.
Or instead of such as actually demolishing the home of an alleged property standards defier & billing the victim by $ 80 K unit-specific chargeback on the basis of a mere grass-cutting by-law ( as one owners association got caught doing in Texas ).
Its the familiar ole' scenario ( often from site-specific voodoo documents ) that induced some U.S. states to cap such chargebacks at $ 1 K , to require due process protocols instead of voodoo, and to illegalize mortgage-like remedies executed without lawful judicial oversight.
Some will also argue
"Don't worry about it ! No big deal ! . . that these chargebacks WILL BE skated onside by still non-implemented Condo Act reforms that impose a VERY tight timeframe on victims to challenge arguable lien abuse. That arguably the CHANGES WILL SHELTER the chargebacks. )
During the former Provincial government's "consultation process" one wonders what some so-called consumer inputters understood or may have contributed to the Act changes still not implemented ( ? whether : "Don't worry about the law. Voodoo chargebacks are OK if only done against bad dudes & not very often . . . "
)
Winning co-counsel ROD ESCAYOLA LLB ( partner Gowlings WLG Ottawa with associate David Plotkin ) has issued the first article about what could become a leading property & civil rights decision with application beyond mere condo disputes.
Mr Escayola's article links to a pdf of the Jan 13/20 Order
not yet reported in the public domain at canlii.org. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/Amlani v. Y.C.C. # 473, 2020 ONSC 194 issued Jan 13 2020 The article is :
Jan 14/20
“Condos Cannot Lien the Cost of Seeking Compliance” by Rod Escayola LLB partner Gowling WLG Ottawa
http://condoadviser.ca/2020/01/condos-cannot-lien-the-cost-of-seeking-compliance/condo-law-blog-
Ontario 
Amidst attention a 3rd article has appeared about this potentially landmark victory for consumer & civil rights : 
