Court File and Parties
Citation: Chapadeau v. Addelman, 2016 ONSC 6803 Court File No.: 16-70034 Date: 2016-11-01 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Remi Chapadeau and Shawn Henderson, Applicants And: Patricia Addelman et al, Respondents
Before: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin Heard: By Requisition
Endorsement
[1] This requisition was referred to me by the Registrar’s Office pursuant to rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, following receipt of a written request of the Respondent, Patricia Addelman, (“Addelman”) dated October 17, 2016. I note that the Applicants were served with a copy of the Respondent’s correspondence.
[2] I have read the Application where it appears the Applicants are the owners of a townhouse unit that is governed by a Shared Property Agreement (“S.P.A.”). The Applicants contest the validity of a resolution passed in 2011 which purports to amend the S.P.A. and its applicability to renovations that they have completed to their unit. In doing so, they have named the other unit owners as well as the members of the Co-tenancy Committee as Respondents.
[3] Addelman’s counsel has submitted a four page argument in support of her request that recourse to Rule 2.1 is appropriate and that the claims against her should be dismissed as being frivolous and vexatious and as an abuse of process.
[4] As Myers, J. concluded in Raji v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2015 ONSC 801 at para 10:
Given the need for the vexatiousness of the proceeding to be apparent on the face of the pleading and the obviousness of most cases, opening submissions from the defendant are of little use. Moreover, there is a question of fairness if evidence is adduced in the submissions with no affidavit and with the plaintiff having no real opportunity to test the evidence or respond in kind. The process set out in sub-rules 2.1.01(3)(4) and (5) does not anticipate submissions from the defendant unless or until the court has received submissions from the plaintiff and calls for responses.
[5] In short, if an argument is to be made, it should be done by way of Notice of Motion on notice to the Applicants. On its face, the Application raises arguable issues about the validity and interpretation of the amended S.P.A. The outcome of the Application will have an impact on all of the other unit owners. Whether or not it was necessary to name them all as Respondents cannot be determined by simple review of the Application on its face and recourse to the attenuated process of Rule 2.1 is not appropriate in these circumstances.
Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
Date: November 1, 2016
Citation: Chapadeau v. Addelman, 2016 ONSC 6803 Court File No.: 16-70034 Date: 2016-11-01
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Re: Remi Chapadeau and Shawn Henderson, Applicants And: Patricia Addelman et al, Respondents
Before: Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin
Endorsement
Beaudoin J.
Released: November 1, 2016