2 total
Application to appoint condominium administrator dismissed as applicant failed to demonstrate board's inability to manage affairs.
The self-represented applicant, a former director of the condominium corporation, applied for the appointment of an administrator or inspector, and sought declarations of oppression and breach of the directors' standard of care.
The applicant alleged that a shared facilities agreement with a developer's subsidiary was unfair and that the board mismanaged expenses and reserve fund calculations.
The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the board was unable to manage the condominium's affairs or that its conduct was oppressive.
The court emphasized that appointing an administrator is a remedy of last resort.
Motion for in-person cross-examinations denied; virtual format with anti-recording orders.
The respondents brought a motion under Rule 1.08(8) seeking an order that cross-examinations on affidavits proceed in person rather than virtually, citing a history of surreptitious recording by the self-represented applicant.
The court found that the respondents failed to establish sufficient justification to depart from the originally agreed-upon virtual format.
Applying the factors in Rule 1.08(6) and principles from the case law, the court ordered that cross-examinations proceed virtually, with additional protective orders prohibiting any recording or publication of the transcripts by the parties.
The timetable was amended accordingly, while the hearing date remained unchanged.
