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:
#19221
COVID frustration ? BIG COSTS ahead for disruptions & merely casual masking : CCC 32 v Yakovlev 2021/05/09 11:59  
Not legal advice,as usual.

Do Covid-19 tensions require extra efforts at respect & chillin' out ? That's even if personal expulsions or unit divestment orders at present look like a pretty DRASTIC tough sell to a civil judge during a pandemic ?

The Denbury : 1973 12 storey Campeau-built 177 unit res condo east of Mooney’s Bay on Riverside Drive Ottawa.

Not a smart city in which to rock any condo ( nor Building Scheme ) boats, particularly without professional counsel

S.R.L. self-represented litigant respondents ( cited to own 2 units ) literally get the floor wiped with them. ( that's not even by the "senior partners" )

Are hit by Condominium Act 1998 section 134 Compliance Orders . . . & likely costs to obtain in the works. + $ 30 K ? . . .

& advise they will move out ( but will it be meekly & silently without more to come ? ) . . .

( that’s : moving even before discovering their units can be hit by Costs to Obtain likely to ensue, which as S.R.L.s they might not have previously grasped . . . ! )

Respondent wife had been confronting governancers with accusations of mis-governance. Had & how big had this factor been in the toxic harassment findings ?

sidebar : Whether & how much some sorta sociological “boiling point” was reached amidst COVID 19 shutdowns of schools & parks ? like nearby Mooney's Bay ? Remember that 4 of their 5 kids are minors at home ?

Anyway S.R.L. self-represented litigant respondents now get hit by Compliance Order. Such cites including for upheld allegations of inconsistent MASKING in common areas, toxic harassment of governancers & PMC ; nuisance claims for child’s playing in hallways.

The "HELD" mask infractions ( found here ) are stated to violate the MUNICIPALITY'S BY-LAW , not any purported Condominium Act by-law. ( see jurisdictional comments Toronto lawyer Denise Lash at
“PARTIAL EXEMPTION granted from COMPULSORY MASK by-law - Halton CC # 77 v Mitrovic et al” https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&catid=9&id=19200#19200 )

* *

xcrpt ( Madam Justice Robyn RYAN BELL ) :

" Overview

[1] Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 32 (“CCC 32”) applies on an urgent basis for an order requiring the respondents to cease and desist from engaging in conduct that CCC 32 says contravenes the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19, the corporation’s governing documents, and the City of Ottawa’s Temporary Mandatory Mask By-law.

CCC 32 says that the respondents have created excessive and unbearable noise at unreasonable hours, engaged in aggressive and/or harassing behaviour towards others, failed to comply with mask-wearing requirements, and obstructed entry to the building for other residents by parking their vehicles on the common elements. CCC 32 says that the respondents’ behaviour constitutes a risk to the health and safety of other residents and the staff at the corporation.

[2] The respondents deny some of CCC 32’s allegations.

They maintain that they respect the law.

The respondents say that they have been harassed by their neighbours and the members of the corporation’s board of directors, and they have been subjected to constant surveillance.

In his submissions, Mr. Yakovlev stated that because they have been so ill-treated, they have made the decision to move from the building. . . ." - unquote

Carleton C.C. # 32 v Yakovlev, 2021 ONSC 3323 issued May 4/21 https://canlii.ca/t/jfr1q
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#19259
$17.6 K costs arguably light for held-harassment etc : C.C.C. # 32 v Yakovlev 2021/08/13 18:39  
Not legal advice.

Now too late with counsel, the respondent unit owners are hit with judge–imposed “full indemnity “ costs. That's $ 17.6 K ( costs to obtain the Compliance Order ) explicitly on grounds that included “ . . . . (iii) the respondents failed to comply with the City of Ottawa’s Temporary Mandatory Mask By-law...”

1 - Compared to many prior costs awards, the mere $17.6 K of this Order-specified full indemnity award - may be seen by some as lenient by comparison ( not the surprised Yakovlevs . )

For example, didn't throttling buckshee parrots or balcony-piddling pooches etc elsewhere sometimes attract more than $ 20 K years ago ?

Didn't in 2010 an allegedly dying condo owner's disorderly outdoor cats in Muskoka trigger a judicial download of $ 19.6 K in "costs to obtain" ?

Didn't this same Ottawa civil justice system before appeal once try to hit an elderly condo owner almost $ 25 K over failure to halt balcony pigeon pests ?

And in 2017-18 didn't an Ottawa lawyer / condo owner's challenge of a $763 flower box punishment lien, actually get her targetted by a local judge's Order that she should consent to a mental exam instead of her beefs being considered ? ( https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&catid=9&id=18847#18847 )

In fact wouldn't someone likelier look at some of the Ottawa area outcomes and then conclude "DO NOT DARE to rock the condo boat in this town ! " Was there sympathy ?

But in perspective, in May the daringly self-represented Yakovlevs were stomped by younger associates of the Applicant condo corporation's counsel firm. ie lower fees.

But for the Costs submission afterward a full partner joined in. And presumably asked for specific full indemnity costs.

2 - ( One respectfully should periodically check the Province's e-laws website to see IF the 2015 era condo reforms have been implemented yet. Surprisingly many are still shown un-actioned into law . . . )

Being expressly judge-imposed here, this cost award's specified amount appears to anticipate what the Province’s e-laws website tantalizingly still shows as not-yet- proclaimed. That a judge would be gatekeeper of "additional costs to obtain a Compliance Order . . .

That’s apparently in contrast to what is still shown in the awaiting-abolition 2001 version of section 134(5) “costs shall be added” to respondent’s unit-specific contributions ( technically to top up what a judge saw fit to impose ).

Carleton C.C. # 32 v Yakovlev, 2021 ONSC 5483 issued Aug 11/21 https://canlii.ca/t/jhhnt
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster