Campbell v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation, 694
The motions judge did not improperly exercise his discretion in denying an adjournment or inspector, nor in declining to invoke s.134 for the board-approved practices; the appellant's interests were not unfairly disregarded so s.135 relief was unwarranted; the budget increase did not require a by-law or s.97(4)...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C37766
- Parties
- Appellant: Captain Douglas Kay Campbell; Respondent: Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation, 694
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 15 October 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Motions Judge (judgment Dated January 22, 2002)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Condominium Act S.134, Condominium Act S.135, Condominium Act S.97(4), Adjournment, Appointment of Inspector, Proxy Voting, By Law Validity, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Captain Douglas Kay Campbell
Appellant
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation, 694
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Motions Judge (judgment Dated January 22, 2002)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motions judge erred in refusing an adjournment or appointment of an inspector
- 2 Whether s.134 of the Condominium Act should be invoked for admitted non-compliance (direct election of president; prohibition on proxies)
- 3 Whether s.135 relief was warranted for unfair disregard of the appellant's interests
Ratio Decidendi
The motions judge did not improperly exercise his discretion in denying an adjournment or inspector, nor in declining to invoke s.134 for the board-approved practices; the appellant's interests were not unfairly disregarded so s.135 relief was unwarranted; the budget increase did not require a by-law or s.97(4) compliance; therefore the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs on a partial indemnity scale fixed at $3,000 if demanded by the condominium corporation
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Campbell v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation, 694 Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2002-10-15 Docket numbers C37766 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Rosenberg, Marc; Goudge, Stephen Thomas Subject Civil Decision Content DATE:20021015 DOCKET: C37766 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: CAPTAIN DOUGLAS KAY CAMPBELL (Applicant) (Appellant) –and– METROPOLITAN TORONTO CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, 694 (Respondent) (Respondent in Appeal) BEFORE: LASKIN, ROSENBERG and GOUDGE JJ.A. COUNSEL: Guy B. M. Hunter, for the appellant Patricia M. Conway, for the respondents HEARD: October 9, 2002 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Ian V. B. Nordheimer dated January 22, 2002. ENDORSEMENT [1] The refusal either to grant an adjournment or to appoint an inspector were matters within the motions judge’s discretion. We are not persuaded that he exercised this discretion improperly. [2] Equally, we are not persuaded that he exercised his discretion improperly in refusing to invoke s. 134 of the Ontario Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19 for the admitted instances of non-compliance. Although the direct election of the president was not authorized by by-law and the prohibition against the use of proxies for voting was contrary to the Act, both were approved of by the Board to address long-standing complaints within the building. We are satisfied that the motions judge understood this and considered that the court should not intervene. We also note that the use of proxies would not have changed the appellant’s position in the vote for president and that Mr. Lio is a member of the Board that approved the procedure. [3] We see no basis for an order under s. 135 of the Act. Even accepting that the appellant’s interests were disregarded, they were not unfairly so. The Board was entitled to take steps to ensure that it would be able to conduct its business. [4] Finally, we agree with Ms. Conway that the increase in the common expenses in the Board’s annual budget requires neither a by-law nor compliance with s. 97(4) of the Act. [5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $3,000, if demanded by the condominium corporation. Signed: “John Laskin J.A.” “M. Rosenberg J.A.” “S. T. Goudge J.A.” Released: October 15, 2002