ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
JOLANTA LUDWIG
Appellant
- and -
685478 ONTARIO INC.
Respondent
David J. McGhee, for the Appellant
Natalia Angelini, for the Respondent
HEARD: September 28, 2004
BENOTTO S. J.: (Orally)
1This is an appeal from the order of Madam Justice Thomson who dismissed the appellant’s claim. The action involved the correct calculation of various charges and assessments by the Board of Housing Co-operative to the shareholders. The appellant was a shareholder and a resident in the respondent housing co-operative. She was attempting to have levies set aside which amounted to approximately $900.00.
2The appeal was is on the basis that:
(i) there was an apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge, and
(ii) that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.
APPREHENSION OF BIAS
3The appellant argues that the “cumulative effect” of the trial showed the “frustration and impatience” of the trial judge which created a reasonable apprehension of bias. When pressed for references to the transcript, counsel referred to statements made by the Court, which in my view, disclosed:
(i) the trial judge’s attempts to assist an unrepresented party before her;
(ii) her attempt to understand the nature of the claim, and
(iii) the trial judge’s attempt to control the process before her.
4I find that there is no statement on an individual basis or statements which together cumulatively show bias on the part of the trial judge. On the contrary, it is clear that she was trying to control both the barrage of evidence and documents before her and to interject some order into the proceedings. Counsel invites me simply to infer that the trial judge must have become frustrated.
5While I draw no such inference, it certainly would not be the basis for an apprehension of bias. The trial judge in my view should be commended for her patience. This ground for appeal is dismissed.
MISAPPREHENSION OF EVIDENCE
6The appellant argues that the trial judge erred when she found that there was sufficient notice of the meeting which dealt with budgets. The by-laws require that the notice for these meetings shall attach a statement in sufficient detail to allow the shareholders to form a reasoned judgment. Justice Thomson had before her sufficient evidence and referred in detail to Exhibit “13” in determining that there was sufficient notice in this regard. I cannot say that there was no evidence to support her finding on this basis.
7The appellant also says that Justice Thomson erred in not dealing with the appellant’s harassment claim, however, there was no evidence with respect to this led by the appellant.
8In summary, there is no basis for this appeal and it will be dismissed.
9I order costs payable by the appellant to the respondent fixed in the amount of $1,500.00, payable in 3 installments of $500.00 each on October 1, 2004, January 1, 2005 and April 1, 2005, without interest.
BENOTTO S. J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 28, 2004
Date of Release: October 1, 2004
COURT FILE NO.: 559/02
DATE: 20040928
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
JOLANTA LUDWIG
Appellant
- and -
685478 ONTARIO INC.
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BENOTTO S. J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 28, 2004
Date of Release: October 1, 2004