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

1 - Amidst attention a 3rd article has appeared about this potentially landmark victory for consumer & civil rights :

Jan 22 /12 “Condos Must Act Reasonably When Seeking Compliance “ by winning co-counsel David Plotkin ( Associate - Gowling WLG ) http://condoadviser.ca/2020/01/condos-must-act-reasonably-when-seeking-compliance/condo-law-blog- Ontario


2 - belatedly ( ? ) this important decision is now online in the public domain at canlii.org :


http://canlii.ca/t/j4rrl

and ultimately is it even sorta like share-cropping where a jurisdiction tolerates mere Declaration-platformed "indemnifications" / "chargebacks" ? ( low but steady flow of income to lawfirms or managers with minimal effort; most may capitulate but defiant scofflaws might even generate lots of litigation billings . . .)

And set in motion merely by $ 500 - $ 800 word-processed civil demand letter - possibly assembly-lined with minimal if any legal oversight . . . ?

A little too tempting ( ? ) to defray overhead & maybe even transition into profitable title slander warfare ?

Imagine done merrily by self-managed D.I.Y. condo or Building Scheme volunteers who decide what factuals merit some financial punishment & title-whacking . . . . You oughta hear some of what I hear from well-intentioned volunteers in the Building Scheme universe

Even the issues where done correctly by management companies ( commented May 11/17 "Lien registration is lawyers’ work” by C. Jaglowitz LLB https://www.ontariocondolaw.com/2017/05/articles/case-studies/lien-registration-is-lawyers-work/ )

Is this where Ontario should head ? :

Dec 7/19 KHOU- 11 "HOA sues retired Texas City couple for up to $100,000 for flower beds that don’t meet guidelines" ) not high enough to mask foundation lines https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/hoa-sues-retired-texas-city-couple-for-up-to-100000-for- flower-beds-that-dont-meet-guidelines/285-8552da47-1c4b-45b3-b719-58c36560ab2d

. . . cited with some others where it arguably got wildly out of control :

Dec 11/19 “Time to end predatory HOA lawsuits and foreclosures” by Debora Goonan “Independent American Communities” https://independentamericancommunities.com/2019/12/11/time-to-end-predatory-hoa-lawsuits-and- foreclosures/

Some aftermaths continue :

lots of lawyers shrieking & attempt to quarantine or neuter the Amlani decision, which LawTimes article ( below ) quotes corporation’s counsel has been instructed to appeal.

Reactions look reminiscent of some of the U.S. aftermaths after U.S. abuses occasionally get overturned :

eg trying to totally avoid the BIGGER ISSUE whether chargebacks are lawful unless expressly platformed within the Condo Act & Regs. ( eg Should voodoo site-specific governance documents dare be allowed to trump the legislated limits on the powers of these sorts of organizations ? )

Or trying to lay it on wording of the specific governance document.

Or on balance of fairness between disputants’ behaviours.

Or “Don’t worry. Eventually it WILL BECOME legal !”

April 1 2020 LAW TIMES “Selling your condo — to pay neighbours’ legal fees ?” by Anita Balakrishnan https://www.lawtimesnews.com/practice-areas/real-estate/selling-your-condo-to-pay-neighbours-legal- fees/328202

What may be Ontario's most important condo decision of 2020, will get a ZOOM hearing by a Divisional Court panel on JUNE 26 2020.

York C.C. # 473 v Amlani 2020 ONSC 3700 issued June 12/20 http://canlii.ca/t/j88p8

Not legal advice, as usual.

An undated unattributed article bearing the masthead of a well-known condo specialist lawfirm, has recently appeared & arguably refers to the awaited outcome of the AMLANI decision.

That article urges "reasonableness" & compliance with law & legal counsel. It appeared June 19/20 at the Canada section of the large U.S. site Community Associations Network. It's now at the firm's website as entitled " Lessons for board members from BC decision"

Anyway that article & the cited year-old B.C. adjudication, are well worth reading.

From Ontario of course there has been no shortage of lien & charge-back abuse material long before AMLANI. There probably were such shenanigans in some Ontario Building Schemes long before Ontario's 1967 condo legislation

Lots of others' comments at cafcor about charge-backs appeared here long before mine.

In perspective most of the abuses usually do not rise to the level of lawlessness of the Texas HOA homeowners association that the Texas Court of Appeal found unlawfully demolished a home & billed the owners $ 80 K ! ( U.S.) ! ( the HOA's authority ? : a mere grass-cutiing & debris pickup by-law. . How reasonable was that ? )

NOR to the level of the R.I.C.O. rackets that used straw Directors at numerous sites to inflate & skim Las Vegas condo contracts until the F.B.I intervened, triggering a lawyer suicide & jail sentences for many.( the Nevada item was a specific past topic here by R.F.)

BUT Amlani got a lot of attention, howsoever its outcome will be. And howsoever much fear & loathing it has generated . . .

From whomever's recent article, the B.C. ( garage door ) chargeback decision of June 2019, is at Cafcor's Out of Province Forum with other occasionally lurid stuff . . . ( “B.C tribunal VOIDS FINE charged back after PARKADE DAMAGE ruled due to tenant & STRATA COUNCIL” https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&catid=11&id=19096#19096 )

June 19 2020 at CANADA section of U.S. site https://communityassociations.net/owners-strata-houtstra/ by whomever & whenever ? : “The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 2503 v. Houtstra et al (2019 BCCRT 690)” https://mailchi.mp/631571e7b43e/lessons-for-board-members-from-bc-decision ( addendum : now entitled "Lessons for board members from BC decision" )