Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 277/18 DATE: 20190219 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Ralph Friedrich, Plaintiff/Appellant AND: Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1018, Defendant/Respondent
BEFORE: F. L. Myers, J.
COUNSEL: R. Parker, for the Appellant N. Polis, for the Respondent
HEARD: December 18, 2018
Transcribed Hand-Written Endorsement
[1] In my view this appeal can be resolved on the issue of the standard of care. I therefore make no decision on the other issues. Assuming, without deciding, that the Appellant can succeed on all other issues, he still fails on the standard of care.
[2] The condominium corporation owed Appellant a duty to exercise reasonable care of the common elements. It made a judgment call to change from a telephone entry system on P-1 to a motion sensor with active security. It hired a licensed security company that provided 24/7 security employees. They added CCTV that could be monitored. They had security protocols that provided for active rounds of the security guard in P-1 at least every two hours. This met the duty of an occupier under the Occupier’s Liability Act.
[3] Under the Condominium Act, 1998, the Board’s business judgment is entitled to deference. It was open to the Appellant to prove that the Board’s decision was unreasonable by calling expert or security evidence. Instead he just submits that the fact that vandalism occurred establishes the case. He argues that the Defendant treated its security guards as concierges and they did not give them full time and attention to the CCTV. But absent some evidence that this was unreasonable, or that it foreseeably caused the plaintiff’s loss, the plaintiff has not established a breach of the applicable standard of care. The defendant’s evidence, that the judge accepted, was that it was prudent in the circumstances. The judge found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden to prove otherwise. I see no error in principle and no palpable or overriding error in these findings.
[4] Appeal dismissed.
[5] Costs sought by the Appellant and the Respondent are roughly equal. In my view both are disproportionately high given the subject matter. Appellant shall pay Respondent $5,000 costs all in.
F. L. Myers, J. Date: February 19, 2019