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
$ 62 K whacking by arbitrator for owner’s ACCESS REFUSAL; judges get lobbied by S.R.L. defendant 2020/11/13 22:16  
Not legal advice as usual.

Some do-it-yourselfers can decently shingle their roof. Or fix their tractor. But leaping into condo law and wading S.R.L. ( self represented litigant ) into litigation, can be fraught with expensive risk.

A Toronto unit owner and his condo corporation entered a mediation - and later arbitration - process after that owner refused to allow the corporation to access his condo unit.

A pair of recent Endorsement decisions by a veteran Toronto judge, supply minimal detail why access had been sought and refused. Access is cited as sought to replace defective original plumbing ( whether Kitec ? whether unit or common element plumbing or both ? Did the award include technical or engineering studies ? ? Or avoidable extra costs ? ) .

Anyway the owner’s refusal to allow entry eventually culminated in a second-stage arbitration process in which the unit owner declined to participate.

The arbitrator apparently continued ex parte and awarded a whopping $ 62 K against the access-denier in 2019 !

That amount was eventually liened against the denier's unit.

A year later the condo corporation with experienced counsel has applied to civil court to enforce the condo lien.

A trip into a Twilight Zone

Still without counsel, the access-denier arguably worked up some judicial havoc by pre-emptively attempting to reach and influence civil judges !

That totally inappropriate & arguably unlawful activity - rather than filing a concurrent counter Application as repeatedly suggested from a civil judge with the patience of Job - has resulted in two Endorsements. Those mightily lean over backwards to let the do-it yourselfer get his position heard. ( Or would it really be better to let him fall off his own roof ? )

That’s to file a conventional counter Application to void the lien. Rather than trying to merely raise defences amidst also stumbling into bizarre attempts to compromise the integrity of the civil justice system ? !

A further unsettling aspect of the havoc, is the access–denier’s attempt to base his defence on claims of oppression & lien abuse.

Specifically he points to the landmark AMLANI decision of January 2020 as upheld on appeal, but this S.R. L. fails to see very crucial differences from the AMLANI scenario. This ain't AMLANI.

Unlike this access denial case, AMLANI himself was Applicant to void a charge-back lien ruled unsustainable including due to a lack of statutory platform and what judges could also see as some hardball unreasonableness.

Here the unit-denier – unlike the AMLANI scenario - had apparently signed on for ADR culminating in an arbitration which he soured on.

Second-hand smoke-source or not, Mr Amlani can be seen to have bent over backwards to do the right thing. He was also smart enough to bring in 2 excellent counsel from a distant city ( see CAFCOR topic )

BUT here a multi-storey owner stubbornly refusing what might be prudent re-plumbing to avoid pipe rupture, is also on some shaky ground right from the start.

It’s an expensive lesson still being learned by the access-denier.

T.S.C.C. 1466 v Weinstein 2020 ONSC 6898 issued Nov 12 /20

T.S.C.C. 1466 v Weinstein 2020 ONSC 5269 issued Sep 2/20
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
UNIT WORK charge-back : T.S.C.C. 1466 v Weinstein 2021/06/28 21:02  
not legal advice.

From time to time one can see an especially unfortunate aspect of some condo/strata/ Building Scheme wars. That's pursuing them maybe with more vigour than sound legal position.

It's not uncommon that bright folks might get sucked into a sorta Bermuda Triangle that will cost lots of money and focus arguably better applied in other ways. Respectfully should remember that Associations & governancers have a treasure chest to back them.

Update June 28/21

ONCA Ontario's Court of Appeal has just rejected the dissenting unit owner's appeal from ongoing lost appeals after 2020. Those look arguably duplicative about the same lien for s 92 (1) “work done for owner” .

This later series or continuation NOW identifies KITEC in-unit plumbing - arguably a vulnerability justifiably triggering compulsory s 92 "work done for owner" / potential water-leakage claims. But . . .

Many KITEC owners have had zero problem with the product at all. But understandably realtors & insurers have raised a hue & cry about a product that has very often caused ZERO problem for several decades where installed. That I know personally.

Still, the defied s 92 work orders & demands for unit access, may have some validity. Lower court ( May 13/21 ) had confirmed $ 71, 121 awards plus lien intact in place.

Respectfully : life's short.

Weinstein v. T.S.C.C. 1466 (2021 ) ONCA 470 issued June 28/21

2 - An individual with the same name unsuccessfuly sued lotsa government / regulatory bodies after failing to get a chance to turn his property management training into a vocation. His beef had been the 2 year experience requirement. This may not be the same unit owner.

Hopefully the corner can be turned positively, whether or not the same individual . . .

Weinstein v. HMQ, 2019 ONSC 2133 issued April 4 /19 and 2 others

Again : Respectfully : life's short.
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster