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:
#19140
DECLARANT Cottage Advisors 'fails to pierce corporate veil’ : OPPRESSION & UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE 2020/11/15 20:03  
Not legal advice, as usual

An ONSC ( Ontario Superior Court of Justice ) judge has accepted a Rule 21 Motion erected as personal shields by 4 named defendant Directors - sued by Declarant Cottage Advisors for alleged oppression as personal co-defendant Directors along with their Prince Edward Vacant Land C.C. #10 but targetted separately as personal defendants without C.C. involvement on grounds of “unlawful interference with economic relations”.

Solely as to “piercing the corporate veil”, for lack of particulars in the Declarant's claim the Rule 21 Motion is granted striking down BOTH grounds against the Directors personally.

The OPPRESSION CLAIM alone can continue and such is solely against the corporate entity condo corporation. ( The background disputes centre on alleged common element deficiencies and on alleged disturbances by short term occupancies managed by the Declarant, an active exponent of such by various investment vehicles for more than a decade. Undoubtedly the legislated milestones for transfer of control of the condo corporation, have passed control out of the Declarant's hands ).

( Wider, could a corporate entity itself be capable of 'unlawfully interfering' with third party financial relations including by the wording of Status Certificates or urging municipal planners to retain performance surety until sign-off of common element deficiencies ? )

The 2020 judicial appointee curiously ( ? ) analyzes both condo oppression & illegal interference without reference to the most frequently cited condo oppression decisions.

NOR surprisingly to the 2014 Supreme Court of Canada treatment of the second grounds : ( A.I. Enterprises Ltd., et al. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd., et al. 2014 SCC 12 ( Canlii ) 2014 1 SCR 177 http://canlii.ca/t/g2wn4 ( From Canada's top court such was a major & current discussion of the controversial tort & arguably imposed a somewhat high threshold for such claim to ever succeed in Canada's common law provinces. )

Interestingly she cites receiving as sole Condo Act Oppression finding personally against an Ontario condo Director : the long-running Ottawa condo struggle in which ( condo President ) Burdet’s majority shenanigans triggered Administratorship & later a total complex sale along with ruling of Section 135 Oppression against him – the President - personally . ( cafcor topic https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=18837&catid=2#18837 )

More about the unlawful interference tort : see “The defendants fired their cannons at my slave suppliers !" ( at cafcor topic “CONSPIRACY claim against Directors & PMgr BEATS UPFRONT Motion to quash: 1589680 Ontario v TSCC 1441” https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=18568&catid=9#18568 )

Cottage Advisors of Canada v. Prince Edward Vacant Land ( Condominium Corporation # 10 ) ( sic ) 2020 ONSC 6445 issued Oct 26/10 http://canlii.ca/t/jbck5

addendum Jan 28/31

This decision is cited & discussed in “PIERCING CORPORATE VEIL against Directors PERSONALLY ? : NOT EASY; Matlock v O-CSCC 815” https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&catid=2&id=19179#19179
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#19213
SANDBANKS SUMMER RESORT litigation will continue ( Prince Edward VACANT LAND Condo Corp ) 2021/04/22 22:57  
Not legal advice, as usual,

A jettisoned Declarant of HIGH DENSITY seasonal condos in Eastern Ontario ( Sandbanks Summer Village near Picton ) will continue to seek a remedy.

That's after Ontario Superior Court blocked his attempt to pierce the corporate shell above against Directors personally after the transition of power under the turn-over provisions of Ontario's Condominium Act 1998.

( The Feb 17/21 decision among those below, partially summarizes the evolution of this dispute.

Following a U.S. model, about 12 years ago Cottage Advisors persuaded Prince Edward County to actually approve a development of 237 mini-chalets or bungalows registered in 2011 as condos on an 80 acre tract. It's said to include 1600 feet of East Lake waterfront.

Controversies raised by some at the time included environmental risks & the upfront hiring of the County's then Chief Building Officer to resign & manage the construction.

Photos suggest compact but attractive free-standing buildings on 1200 to 2000 square feet. Is that 22 or 23 chalets per acre of usable land ?

Covenants are claimed to try to preclude wintertime occupancy, presumably backed by control of the common water supply & sewage collection systems. ? Electricity shutdown ? What if a chalet owner refuses to leave at autumn's end ? ; I have laboured in that vineyard before - trying to prove covenant-defying winter occupancy.

With 25 or 30 condo units left unsold last year, the obvious issues with such a project in cottage country - ? noise ? disruptive short term licensees ? system issues ? - appear to have resulted in the Vacant Land Condo Corporation ditching contractual relations with the Declarant's sales, rental pool & management operations.

What will ultimately happen if the good ole' condo reserve funding model turns out to handle life cycles of septic & water systems ? For example the way it sometimes handles parking garages, roofs & building envelopes ?

And how well do some recreational occupants behave ? )

This cottage country condo dispute could go a long way . . .

* * *

( cross reference to Ottawa condo oppression dispute at “PIERCING CORPORATE VEIL against Directors PERSONALLY ? : NOT EASY; Matlock v O-CSCC 815” https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=19179&catid=2 )

* * *

In Picton :

April 6/21 : Cottage Advisors of Canada v. Prince Edward Vacant Land ( Condominium Corporation # 10 ) ( sic ) 2021 ONSC 2564 issued April 6 2021 https://canlii.ca/t/jf8l5 ( $ 25 costs awarded to condo corp defendants & cites appeal planned )

( “ . . . [7] I note that after preparing this endorsement I became aware of further unsolicited submissions by the parties informing me that the Applicant was appealing my decision. It is of course open to either party to appeal, or cross-appeal, my decision, and learning of the appeal has not influenced my endorsement.” )

- Feb 17/21 Cottage Advisors of Canada Inc. v. Prince Edward Vacant Land C.C. # 10, 2021 ONSC 1203 https://canlii.ca/t/jdfff

- Feb 8/21 Sandbanks Summer Village Resort Management Inc. v. Prince Edward Vacant Land C.C. # 10 , 2021 ONSC 989 https://canlii.ca/t/jd793
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster