Peter-Paul Du Vernet

This application concerns a dispute between two groups of condominium unit owners regarding the election of a new board of directors following a previous court order for a turnover meeting.

Both groups held their own elections, each claiming the other's was invalid due to procedural irregularities or lack of proper notice/attendance records.

The court found both elections invalid due to substantive issues within their procedural flaws and ordered a new, properly convened turnover meeting within 30 days, with specific requirements for notice, candidate identification, and voting records.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant tenant sought relief from forfeiture after being locked out of its banquet hall business by the respondent landlord due to rent arrears accumulated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the landlord had lulled the tenant into believing rent was reduced or in abeyance, and that the landlord's re-entry on October 19, 2020, violated the Protecting Small Businesses Act, 2020.

The court granted the application, ordering the landlord to restore possession and granting the tenant relief from forfeiture.

In an application seeking a declaration that certain promissory notes were forged, the respondents brought a motion under Rule 30.04(2) to compel the applicants to produce the original promissory notes for inspection.

The applicants argued they did not possess the originals and that the motion was an abuse of process.

The Master granted the motion, ordering both parties to produce any original promissory notes in their possession or provide sworn evidence explaining their whereabouts, emphasizing the importance of verifying pivotal documents.

The applicants sought to remove land and PPSA registrations placed by the respondents on the basis of two promissory notes.

The court determined a preliminary issue of whether the promissory notes were enforceable on their face against the applicant corporations.

The court found that because the notes did not name the corporations, despite the individual signatory indicating he had authority to bind a corporation, the notes were only enforceable against the individual personally.

Consequently, the registrations against the corporate applicants were ordered removed.