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.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1[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[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[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[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[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