SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-1259-00
DATE OF ENDORSEMENT: 2014 08 14
DATE OF RELEASE: 2014 08 22
RE: YORK REGION STANDARD CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 1113 v. ALESSANDRO ANTONELLI
BEFORE: EMERY J.
COUNSEL:
A. Casalinuovo, for the Applicant
A. Antonelli, appearing in person
HEARD: August 14, 2014
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The moving party is a Condominium Corporation which obtained a judgment granted by Justice Daley on May 2, 2014 against the respondent unit owner to immediately and permanently remove its two dogs from his unit. The motion seeks a finding of contempt, and an order under Rule 60.11(9), permitting the applicant to engage a contractor to enter the respondent’s unit as to permanently remove the dogs.
[2] The respondent was not present on May 2, 2014 when Justice Daley heard the application and gave judgment. He has brought a motion to set aside Justice Daley’s judgment returnable before this court on February 4, 2015. He says the result would have been different on May 2, 2014 if he had been heard by the court on the application that day. In essence, his is seeking an adjournment of the contempt motion today to allow for his motion to be heard next year.
[3] The respondent’s request is denied. Without prejudice to any evidence he files on the set aside motion or submissions he makes when it is heard on February 4, 2015, the applicant is entitled to the disposition of its motion. That motion was brought in July 2014, served on July 2, 2014 and first returnable in Brampton on July 25, 2014. The respondent’s motion to set aside the judgment is not dated but his affidavit in support of that motion is shown as being sworn on August 6, 2014. That motion is not before me today.
[4] On the applicant’s motion, the respondent concedes and admits that he has not removed the dogs and that they continue to reside with him in his unit contrary to Justice Daley’s judgment. The law is clear: a judgment or order of the court must be followed. Counsel for the applicant referred me to the Boily v. Carlton Condominium Corporation 145, 2014 ONCA 574 decision for the court of appeal for the most recent confirmation of principles at paragraphs 142 to 143. Despite the fact that the respondent brought a motion after the applicant’s motion for contempt was set down for a date he unilaterally selected on the basis that he needs 60 minutes to be heard, does not take away from the force, effect and enforceability of Justice Daley’s judgment. An order, which includes a judgment, remains effective and binding unless and until it is either set aside or reversed on appeal. Neither event has occurred here.
[5] Therefore, the dogs must go. I make an order granting the relief requested in paragraphs, 1, 2, 3, of the notice of motion. If Mr. Antonelli resists enforcement of the order, he may face the penalties requested in paragraph 4 on a sanction hearing to be heard by me, on notice.
[6] Costs of today’s motion are hereby granted to the applicant fixed in the amount of $10,000 all-inclusive and payable by the respondent within 30 days.
[7] Approval of the draft order dispensed with.
EMERY J
DATE OF ENDORSEMENT: August 14, 2014
DATE OF RELEASE: August 22, 2014
Corporation No. 1113 v. Antonelli, 2014 ONSC 4844
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-1259-00
DATE OF ENDORSEMENT: 2014 08 14
DATE OF RELEASE: 2014 08 22
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: YORK REGION STANDARD CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 1113 v. ALESSANDRO ANTONELLI
BEFORE: EMERY J.
COUNSEL: A. Casalinuovo, for the Applicant
A. Antonelli, appearing in person
HEARD: August 14, 2014
ENDORSEMENT
EMERY J
DATE OF ENDORSEMENT: August 14, 2014
DATE OF RELEASE: August 22, 2014