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
Judge NIXES remedial Orders despite decade of NO RESERVE FUND UPDATES/ NO AUDITS-Tharani v MTCC812 2021/03/11 19:15  
Not legal advice.

A Toronto civil judge ( 2012 Federal appointee ) refuses to issue Compliance Order nor to impose Inspectorship onto a Markham commercial condominium corporation ( amongst other remedies sought ). Nor to award compensation sought by an owner & others who were forced to pursue dereliction of corporate duties. Such refusal occurs at the latest of several rounds of Superior Court & ONCAT processes . . .

( Does the judge grasp that the legislation enacts a statutory right of owners & lenders to comply AND TO RECEIVE COMPLIANCE NO MATTER HOW DERELICT have been successive Boards of Directors ! There is huge significance to some of the ignored property & civil rights being derelicted . )

What sort of message is sent to condo, strata & Building scheme governancers by this latest ?

REMEDIES refused despite decade without corporation AUDITS nor any Reserve Fund full study /updates ( undisputed : most recent reserve fund full or update - 2013. Also undisputed : that a $ 75 K hydro bill had been unlawfully paid out of Reserve Funds ! )

most recent corporate audit 2011 ! Respondent condo corporation has the audacity to claim their promised audit has been delayed because Toronto audit servicers are scared away by the Applicants !

Failure to obtain CAO registration ( uncited by the judge : such bars from “maintaining a proceeding“ to protect the rights of owners & lenders without prior judicial approval in ONCAT & Ontario's civil justice systems). See Condominium Act 1998 S.O.1998 ch 19 - for the Act’s subsection 23.1 "Restriction on ability to sue".

Had earlier ignored an ONCAT process & only-late complied with a records disgorgement Order by ONCAT. ( cross-reference to previous CAFCOR item : “Tribunal defiers eventually complied but hit by Compliance Order & costs THARANI v MTCC # 812” )

Disputed : Applicant argues that ONCAT-pried records have now disclosed a shocking & potentially outcome – varying electoral indicator : that 2019 Directoral ballots cast were materially in excess of the units actually present / proxied ! !

Tharani Holdings Inc. v M.T.C.C. # 812, 2021 ONSC 1125 issued Feb 22/21
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster