Dilreet Singh Dandiwal

In contempt proceedings arising from a failure to comply with a prior court order requiring production of financial and accounting records, the court addressed a request for an adjournment of a sentencing hearing for contempt.

The corporate director of the respondent had failed to appear at a previous hearing, resulting in the issuance of a bench warrant.

After appearing with newly retained counsel, the director sought additional time to assemble the required financial documentation and to address missing records.

Although the court expressed concern about repeated adjournments and minimal compliance with prior orders, it concluded that granting a short adjournment would better facilitate production of the required documents and potential purging of the contempt.

The bench warrant was rescinded, the matter adjourned on a peremptory basis, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the applicants.

The applicants brought a motion for civil contempt under Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure against a corporate respondent for repeated non-compliance with prior court orders requiring production of materials and accounting under the Condominium Act, 1998.

Applying the three-part contempt test from Bell ExpressVu Ltd. Partnership v. Torroni, the court found the orders were clear and unequivocal, the respondent’s failure to comply was deliberate and wilful, and contempt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected the respondent’s request for an adjournment and held that the record demonstrated persistent disregard of court orders.

The respondent corporation was found in contempt, and the directing mind of the corporation was ordered to attend a further contempt hearing to determine enforcement if the contempt was not purged.

Costs were awarded to the applicants on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicants sought costs following earlier proceedings concerning the respondent declarant’s repeated failure to comply with obligations under the Condominium Act, 1998 and with prior court orders requiring disclosure of information to the condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to file responding submissions despite being granted time to do so.

The court reviewed the applicants’ bill of costs and found the requested amount reasonable under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also considered whether additional monetary relief was available under the Condominium Act, 1998.

Costs were awarded to the applicants along with an additional statutory amount due to the declarant’s failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with statutory disclosure obligations.

Unit owners and the condominium corporation brought an application seeking declarations confirming the validity of a turnover meeting and compelling the declarant to comply with statutory obligations under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicants alleged the declarant failed to hold required owner meetings, transfer control of the board, maintain building operations, and deliver mandatory records and financial information.

The court found the declarant had not complied with statutory duties and had failed to provide evidence supporting claims that it held proxies capable of altering the turnover meeting outcome.

The court confirmed the validity of the September 7, 2011 turnover meeting, recognized the elected board, and ordered the declarant to deliver statutory documents, records, and funds and to provide a full accounting of monies collected for condominium operations.