SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 09-45430
DATE: 2014/06/25
RE: CARLETON CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 396
Plaintiff
AND
CLAUDE-ALAIN BURDET, CLAUDE-ALAIN BURDET IN TRUST, 1457563 ONTARIO CORPORATION, 1457563 ONTARIO CORPORATION IN TRUST, JANET SUE BURDET, NELSON STREET LAW OFFICES, L’ACADEMIE CHRISTIANE SAUVE INC., AND INTERNATIONAL BEAUTY DEPOT
Defendants
BEFORE: Kane J.
COUNSEL:
Fabrice Gouriou, counsel for the Plaintiff
Claude-Alain Burdet, counsel for all defendants, except International Beauty Depot
HEARD: June 20, 2014 (at Ottawa)
CASE CONFERENCE ENDORSEMENT
[1] The plaintiff advised it would not be filing reply argument to that submitted by the defendants.
[2] Counsel responded to the following questions by the court regarding the written argument submitted by the parties in this trial.
Questions from the court
(1) Do the defendants agree with paras. 4 and 12 of plaintiffs’ written submissions?
(2) What is the evidence to substantiate para. 13 of plaintiffs’ written submissions?
(3) What is the authority that amendments to the Declaration require consent of all owners? (para. 48 plaintiffs’ argument)
(4) Re plaintiffs’ argument para. 47, is there evidence why with 33 units, only 31 were eligible to vote?
(5) Re Defendants’ argument 44 (a), what evidence is there to support statement that Brazeau “admitted the existence and calculated the quanta of water consumption according to the water by-law?”
(6) What is the authority for defendants’ para. 65 (d) and (f)?
(7) Was this 396 Action brought under s. 31 of the Mortgages Act thereby engaging the case law and argument pursuant to paras. 92 to 98 of the defendants’ submissions?
(8) According to M-L Report 3, appendix IV, by June 10, 2005, the Minority had paid the $72,248.83 owing under the 2002 and 2005 orders of Lalonde J. The Minority however by that date for most of the Minority units, remained indebted to CCC 396 as follows:
(a) Each of the then 18 basement units owned by the Minority was indebted for unpaid fees. Seventeen of those units each owed $207.70. One unit, A-4, owed $558.13. Total debt of these 18 units on June 10, 2005 was $4,090.56.
(b) Units 101-B and 101-C as of this date, had credit balances each in the amount of $1,749.82.
(c) Units 106, 202 and 203 each were indebted to CCC 396 on this date in the amount of $397.56 for unit 106 and $1,521.62 for units 202 and 203.
(9) Under s. 85(7) of the Act, was CCC 396 required as of June 10, 2005 to register a discharge of the liens against units 101-B and 101-C? Can those two liens now be relied upon to claim possession or sale as no new liens against those two units were subsequently registered?
(10) Does the Minority’s combined running account calculation of their general account include interest? I think the answer is no, notwithstanding the heading of exhibit 27, Tab-L entitled “compounded arrears” of Minority. The total credit owing therein to the Minority for example in that exhibit as of the final date in exhibit 6 Tab-G as of October 1, 2010 is identical. Plus these are no entries in exhibit 27, Tab-L under the column “Interest”. Is there another calculation in evidence including interest? Is the Minority claiming interest on what they claim is their ongoing credit balance in these exhibits? If so, at what rate and what is the source of that entitlement?
(11) Was the January 11, 2012 decision in 396 Action and the Dewan Action appealed and if so, what was the outcome of the appeal?
(12) Does the evidence in this trial indicate whether any of the units or common elements was mortgaged in February, 1997?
(13) Kane J. previously ordered an inspection of all units. Is there evidence at trial whether the inspection was conducted, by whom and when? Did that inspection disclose the existence of individual water meters in each unit and a meter for the common or non-unit areas?
(14) Under the Act, may a condominium issue a special assessment against several but not all units?
(15) Does the court have jurisdiction to direct CCC 396 or the current interim Administrator to levy a special assessment against some but not all unit owners?
(16) Does exhibit 25 correctly name the current unit owners in CCC 396? If not, does the evidence in this trial disclose who the current owners are and when they purchased their units? If yes, where is that evidence?
(17) Regarding exhibit 25, was evidence led in this trial as to when each of the water meters in the units listed therein were installed? Readings listed vary greatly as in unit 106 (25.7) versus unit 105 (10,574.3).
[3] The defendants’ counterclaim in this proceeding shall proceed to trial on November 10, 2014. It is currently scheduled to last two weeks. Counsel shall advise the Trial Coordinator by October 10, 2014, if the length of that trial is by then anticipated to be less than two weeks and if so, the anticipated length thereof.
Kane J.
Released: June 25, 2014
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: CARLETON CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 396
Plaintiff
AND
CLAUDE-ALAIN BURDET, CLAUDE-ALAIN BURDET IN TRUST, 1457563 ONTARIO CORPORATION, 1457563 ONTARIO CORPORATION IN TRUST, JANET SUE BURDET, NELSON STREET LAW OFFICES, L’ACADEMIE CHRISTIANE SAUVE INC., AND INTERNATIONAL BEAUTY DEPOT
Defendants
CASE CONFERENCE ENDORSEMENT
Kane J.
Released: June 25, 2014