COURT FILE: CV-19-00079782-0000
DATE : January 4, 2021
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
CARLETON CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 15
Applicant
- and -
MARC POIRIER, SUZANNE POIRIER, and SEBASTIEN GAUTHIER
Respondents
Virtually Attending:
Ms. Wood and Mr. Lu, Counsel for the Applicant
Mr. Poirier and Mr. Gauthier, each self-represented
Heard: December 16, 2020
Decision - Preliminary Motions
[1] This application was scheduled to proceed today as a bilingual hearing pursuant to the October 8, 2020 order of Master Kaufman.
[2] Mr. Gauthier waited until December 11, 2020 and thereupon filed the following three motions:
a. by himself, to adjourn the application, with documents but without an affidavit;
b. by Ms. Poirier, to remove her as a respondent; and
c. by himself and Mr. Poirier, to strike the cross-examinations conducted in the application proceeding and the transcripts thereof.
[3] The nature of Mr. Gauthier’s three above motions returnable today required determination prior to argument of the application, which includes Mr. Gauthier’s motion to convert the application to an action.
Application History
[4] Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 15 (“CCC 15”) commenced this application on March 29, 2019 under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19 as amended (the “Act”), returnable on August 29, 2019, in which it sought:
a. a declaration that the respondents were in breach of ss. 19, 117 and 119 of the Act, Articles X and XX of the Condominium’s Declaration (the “Declaration”) and of its Rules (the “Rules”);
b. an order that the respondents comply with the Act and with the Declaration and its Rules;
c. an order that the Condominium be granted immediate access and continuing access to the Condominium Unit PH2-158B (the “Unit”), which is owned by the Poiriers and leased to Mr. Gauthier since September 1, 2018, for all purposes related to the objects and duties under the Act, the Declaration and the Rules, including inspections of the Unit and appurtenant common elements;
d. an order that the respondents immediately provide CCC 15 with a key to the Unit to ensure its right of access pursuant to the Act, the Declaration and the Rules;
e. an order terminating the lease of the Unit to Mr. Gauthier pursuant to s. 134(3) of the Act and prohibiting him from residing in the property of CCC 15;
f. in the alternative to terminating his lease, an order that the respondents cease conduct which contevenes the Act, the Declaration and the Rules, and specifically prohibiting them from:
d. engaging in conduct contrary to s. 117 of the Act by permitting a condition or carrying on an activity in the Unit or the common elements likely to damage property or cause injury to an individual including the health and safety of other residents in CCC 15, such as harassing, distressing, aggressive or threatening conduct towards such others;
e. causing unreasonable noise or nuisance within CCC 115 in breach of the Rules, which disturbs the quiet enjoyment of other CCC 15 owners and residents;
f. storing items contrary to the Rules in the Unit’s exclusive-use common elements balcony and parking space.
[5] The scheduled August 29, 2019 return date of the application was adjourned in order that it be scheduled as a bilingual hearing as requested by the respondents. The application was then scheduled to so proceed on December 13, 2019.
[6] CCC 15’s Application Record dated November 13, 2019, includes:
a. its August 28, 2019 requisition for and its Amended Notice of Application, returnable on December 13, 2019;
b. the supporting affidavits of David Lefebvre, President of CCC 15;
c. the supporting affidavit of Yawar Khan, the COO of CCC 15’s management company and its Property Manager; and
d. the supporting affidavit of Peter Lawnikanis, the owner of a unit adjacent to the Unit
[7] CCC 15’s Amended Notice of Application, returnable on December 13, 2019, seeks:
a. a declaration that the respondents also breached s. 98 of the Act and Article IX(1)(d) of its Declaration, as cited, and Rules;
b. an order that the respondents provide CCC 15 a key or lock code to the Unit;
c. an order that the respondents shall, within 21 days, reverse alterations and additions made by them without permission or agreement by CCC 15, to CCC 15’s common elements, including removal of the wooden fences, wooden flags and other alterations made to the Unit’s exclusive-use common element balcony, to restore the same to its previous condition and prohibiting such conduct thereon pursuant to s. 98 of the Act, as cited.
[8] The new grounds citied in that Amended Notice of Application include:
a. Mr. Gauthier’s installation of a wooden fence and painted wooden structure on the Unit’s common element balcony in contravention of the Act and CCC 15’s Declaration; and
b. the respondents’ denial of access to the Unit on May 31 and July 30, 2019, in addition to the previous denials of access on November 5 and 14, 2018 and February 20, 2019.
[9] Mr. Gauthier works as a paralegal. He represented Ms. Poirier in 2016 in Provincial Court. Such legal knowledge and experience normally indicate one’s ability to understand, to appreciate the importance of and the need to comply with legislation, including the Act, and court orders.
[10] The Court on November 29, 2019 ordered substitutional service of the Application Record on Mr. Gauthier. CCC 15’s process server had unsuccessfully attempted on five occasions to serve him.
[11] Upon the December 13, 2019 return of the application, the respondents had filed nothing and therefore sought an adjournment which CCC 15 opposed.
[12] The Court on December 13, 2019 adjourned the application to March 31, 2020, on terms which included that:
a. the respondents were to serve and file their responding affidavits and records by January 25, 2020; and
b. the cross-examination on affidavits was to be completed by February 28, 2020.
[13] The Court on December 13, 2019 further ordered that:
a. the parties were to comply with the above timelines set by the Court;
b. CCC 15 was granted an interim order granting it immediate and continuing access to the Unit by the respondents for all purposes related to the objects and duties in the Act and pursuant to the condominium’s governing documents, including inspection of the Unit and its common elements; and
c. the respondents were to cease conduct which contravened the Act and CCC 15’s governing documents and specifically, prohibited their conduct in the Unit or common elements contrary to s. 117 of the Act or which was likely to cause risk of damage or injury to persons or property, including prohibited aggressive, harassing confrontations, comments and gestures by them towards others in CCC 15.
[14] The respondents failed to file their responding affidavits to the application as ordered by January 25, 2020.
[15] The respondents did not serve and file their three motions in issue by January 25, 2020 and did not do so until eleven months later in December 2020, on the eve of this December 16, 2020 argument of the application.
[16] In contravention of that court ordered January 25, 2020 date for the filing of their affidavits, the respondents filed the following responding affidavits on the application:
a. an affidavit by Mr. Gauthier prepared by his then legal counsel, which is dated and filed on February 20, 2020;
b. a second affidavit by Mr. Gauthier which he appears to have prepared without legal counsel, which is dated and filed on November 6, 2020;
c. an affidavit by Mr. Poirier which appears to have prepared without legal counsel, which is dated and filed on February 25, 2020; and
d. an affidavit by Ms. Poirier which was prepared without legal counsel, which is dated and filed February 25, 2020 and consists of four paragraphs which include her statement that she has no knowledge as to the matters in issue.
[17] The March 31, 2020 date as ordered to argue the application was further adjourned due to Covid-19.
[18] Master Kaufman at the October 8, 2020 Case Conference ordered:
a. that argument of the application was to proceed today, on December 16, 2020;
b. that Mr. Gauthier’s proposed motion to convert this application to an action, should proceed at the outset of argument of the application and did not require a separate Notice of Motion, an affidavit or Records;
c. that CCC 15 was to serve its amended notice of application and affidavits, by October 22, 2020;
d. that the respondents serve their responding affidavits by November 6, 2020;
e. that cross-examinations were to be completed by November 20, 2020;
f. that factums be served by CCC 15 by December 4, and by the respondents by December 11, 2020, with each factum to not exceed 20 pages; and
g. that all material be filed in court by December 11, 2020.
[19] The Master’s above detailed order is silent as to the respondents’ above three motions. Had the respondents indicated their intention to the Master to bring such motions, dates for their filing and CCC 15’s response thereto undoubtedly would have been established in that detailed scheduling order.
[20] Mr. Gauthier instead waited until December 11, 2020, and thereupon filed:
a. The three above Notices of Motion, without supporting affidavits:
b. a twenty-one-page Memoire de M. Gauthier regarding the merits of the application;
c. a thirty-three-page Memoire des Intimées, in support of his motion to convert the application to an action;
d. a twenty-five-page Annexes de Photos, with no supporting affidavit; and
e. a fifty-six-page Annexes de Documents, with no supporting affidavit.
Preliminary Motions
[21] The three preliminary motions seek the following relief:
a. By Mr. Gauthier and Ms. Poirier, for an order that Ms. Poirier be removed as a respondent from this proceeding;
b. by Mr. Gauthier, for an indefinite adjournment of the application based on his alleged medical status and to permit the respondents to retain legal counsel; and
c. by Mr. Gauthier, on behalf of himself and Mr. Poirier, for an order striking the cross-examinations and transcripts of the November 17, 19 and 23, 2020 cross-examinations of deponents who filed affidavits for the parties on the application.
[22] It can be argued that Ms. Poirier’s affidavit in response to the application forms the grounds for the order she seeks to be removed as a party.
[23] The affidavits of Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Poirier filed in response to the application do not address the grounds for or orders sought in the two other motions for a further adjournment of this application or to strike all cross-examination transcripts.
[24] CCC 15 served a reply affidavit on December 16, 2020 in response to the respondents’ three above late motions.
First Motion – To Remove Ms. Poirier as Respondent
[25] The Notice of Motion by Mr. Gauthier and Ms. Poirier to remove her as a respondent seeks and states:
- Une ordonnance que l’intimée Suzanne Poirier soit retirée des procédures du CCC 15;
LES MOYENS À L’APPUI DE LA MOTION SONT LES SUIVANTS:
a. La règle 5.04(2):
(2) Le tribunal peut, par ordonnance au cours de l’instance, joindre, radier ou substituer une partie, ou corriger le nom d’une partie, à des conditions justes, à moins qu’il n’en résulte un préjudice qui ne pourrait être réparé par des dépens ou un ajournement. R.R.O. 1990, Règl. 194, par. 5.04 (2)
b. Les intimées font la demande à la Cour afin que l’intimée Suzanne Poirier soit radiée de toutes procédures juridiques venant de l’Appelant du dossier en question.
c. Mme Suzanne Poirier a été ajouter par l’Appelant seulement car son nom est indiqué dans le certificat de propriété obtenu de Service Ontario.
d. Selon l’affidavit de Mme Poirier datée du 25 février 2020, les écrits mentionnent qu’elle n'a aucune connaissance du dossier en question, et que toute information reçue devrait être envoyées à Marc Poirier.
[26] This motion was dismissed on December 16, 2020 for the following reasons.
[27] Mr. and Ms. Poirier are the joint owners of the Unit.
[28] Mr. Gauthier as tenant occupies the Unit.
[29] An applicant or plaintiff in commencing a proceeding is entitled to select who they join and sue as a respondent or defendant.
[30] The Condominium’s application seeks relief against all three respondents including:
a. a declaration that the three respondents are in breach of various sections of the Act;
b. an order that to compel the three respondents to comply with the Act;
c. an order that the respondents provide the Condominium with access to the Unit as well as working keys or lock codes to the Unit;
d. an order that the respondents remove unauthorized alterations or additions they made to the exclusive-use common element balcony of the Unit;
e. an order terminating the lease of the Unit to Mr. Gauthier; and
f. the full legal costs of the Condominium in this proceeding to be recoverable as common expenses of the Unit.
[31] The above relief sought puts in issue the legal responsibility, the liability of and interests of Ms. Poirier.
[32] Ms. Poirier importantly has not brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the application against her on the grounds that the Condominium has no valid cause of action against her. Nor has she brought a motion for determination of a point of law.
[33] It is also legally insufficient for a respondent or defendant who is potentially legally responsible and liable, to seek their removal as a party simply on the grounds that they know nothing about the allegations against them.
[34] This motion was dismissed for the above reasons.
Second Motion – To Adjourn Application
[35] Mr. Gauthier’s Notice of Motion for an adjournment of the application scheduled to proceed today, requests:
Une ordonnance que les procédures soient ajournées pour raisons médicale afin de permettre à l’intimé d’un bon rétablissement afin d’avoir les capacités nécessaires pour comprendre et répondre correctement au demande et instruction donnée.
De plus du au conséquence extrême de l’application, et le savoir limiter des intimées sur les procédures juridiques civil de ce niveau. Les intimées veulent se positionner dans de bonne circonstance afin de se procurer les conseils juridiques requis dans cette application.
LES MOYENS À L’APPUI DE LA MOTION SONT LES SUIVANTS:
a. La règle 52.02.
AJOURNEMENT DE L’INSTRUCTION
52.02 Le juge peut reporter ou ajourner l’instruction aux date, heure, lieu et conditions justes.
b. L’intimé fait la demande à la Cour afin que les procédures soient ajournées dans le but de permettre à Sébastien Gauthier de poursuivre sa thérapie active dans le but d’un prompt rétablissement.
c. Le comportement continu du Conseil d’administration, et des résident complices du CA, cause d’importante épreuves sur les intimées, ce qui qui met en question la volonté du CA de promouvoir la santé sécurité, confort, et la jouissance de tous les résidents et propriétaires d’unité dans le CCC 15.
d. Du a des circonstances hors de notre contrôle, les conseillers juridiques précédemment associées à ce dossier ont dû se retirer de l’application.
e. Suite à ces informations, les intimées ont tenté de poursuivre d’autre avenue de représentation juridique, mais avec les demandes de l’Appelant, est les ordonnances du protonotaire. Trouver le temps pour la procuration d’un représentant juridique avec temps restreint introduit par la Cour s’avère impossible.
LA PREUVE DOCUMENTAIRE SUIVANTE sera utilisée lors de l’audition de la motion:
Lettre de Dr. Pierre Boisvert date du 4 décembre 2019;
Documents enregistrer à la Cour le 27 août 2020 sur le retrait des conseiller juridiques pour l’intimé Sebastien Gauthier.
[36] Rule 52.02 is inapplicable as it relates to the power to adjourn a trial. A judge however has inherent power to adjourn a proceeding upon or before the commencement thereof.
[37] There is as stated no affidavit filed in support of this motion. Mr. Gauthier ignored that requirement but despite that, produced and relies upon a note from his medical Doctor dated December 9, 2019 in seeking this adjournment.
[38] The subject note, absent an affidavit identifying and attesting to its authenticity, is not evidence on this motion.
[39] Independent of the lack of an affidavit, the December 9, 2019 medical note Mr. Gauthier relies upon in addition does not indicate the nature of Mr. Gauthier’s December 4, 2019 incapacity, thereby making it difficult for a court to evaluate how much weight to attribute to it.
[40] Such note from his Doctor is one year old and is outdated. It does not address Mr. Gauthier’s one year later current capacity to participate in the argument of this application and the various motions that he prepared, served, filed, made returnable and argued today.
[41] Mr. Gauthier made lengthy argument today on three of his motions and agreed to the January 11 to 13, 2021 continuation dates to either argue the application or to proceed with a trial if the court orders a trial.
[42] Mr. Gauthier without counsel for himself and the other respondents, attended on the October 8, 2020 Case Conference at which he announced his intention to bring a motion to convert this application into a trial and received the Master’s decision that due to two prior adjournments of scheduled dates to argue the application, argument of the application and his motion to convert to an action would proceed today, on December 16, 2020. There is no indication of Mr. Gauthier on October 8, 2020, seeking an adjourned for medical reason of that Case Conference or of the application then scheduled to be argued today.
[43] Mr. Gauthier personally cross-examined several deponents who filed affidavits for CCC 15 and was cross-examined himself during three days of cross-examination in November 2020, pursuant to the schedule set by the Master on October 8, 2020.
[44] The above facts contradict Mr. Gauthier’s motion that argument of the application should be adjourned indefinitely due to his unidentified medical status.
[45] There is therefore no evidence in support of Mr. Gauthier’s need for an adjournment on this ground. The motion on this ground therefore was refused.
[46] Mr. Gauthier also cited his wish to retain legal counsel as a ground for the December 16, 2020 adjournment indefinitely of argument of this application.
[47] The evidence is that Mr. Gauthier had legal counsel after commencement of this application until at least February 20, 2020 and that such counsel thereafter resigned and ceased representing Mr. Gauthier.
[48] Mr. Gauthier has had many months to retain other legal counsel, has failed to do so and has failed to present evidence in that regard, if he in fact intended to do so. He as stated proceeded without counsel at the Case Conference and the his subsequent cross-examination of deponents who filed affidavits on behalf of CCC 15.
[49] This application:
a. was commenced on March 29, 2019 and was returnable on August 29, 2019,
b. was then adjourned on December 13, 2019 to March 31, 2020, with some interim relief granted therein to CCC 15;
c. was then adjourned on March 31, 2020 due to Covid-19; and
d. was scheduled by the Master on October 8, 2020 to proceed with argument today.
[50] There is no affidavit evidence as to what efforts, if any, Mr. Gauthier has made to engage counsel since February 2020, some ten months ago.
[51] Due to:
a. the length of time since the March 29, 2019 commencement of this application, some 21 months ago;
b. the previous December 13, 2019 and March 31, 2020 adjournments of the argument of this application;
c. the numerous above steps in this proceeding in which Mr. Gauthier has acted for himself and for the other respondents;
d. the ten months he has had since February 2020 to retain legal counsel; and
e. the absence of any affidavit evidence on this ground;
the requested adjournment today in order to retain legal counsel was denied.
Third Motion – To Strike Cross-Examination Transcripts
[52] Mr. Gauthier on November 6, 2020 sent a list of twenty individuals to CCC 15 that the respondents wished to cross-examine, despite knowing that only six on that list had filed affidavits. Mr. Gauthier’s list includes the names of three lawyers in the firm acting for CCC 15, none of whom had filed an affidavit.
[53] Cross-examination of affidavit deponents on the application proceeded as ordered on November 17 and 19 and, with consent, were completed on November 23, 2020. Messrs. Lefevbre, Khan, Miron and Desjardin were cross-examined on their affidavits filed by CCC 15. CCC 15 cross-examined Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Poirier on their affidavits.
[54] The respondents elected to not serve and produce any cross-examination transcripts upon this December 16, 2020 ordered date to argue this application, despite opposing counsel citing the provisions of R. 39.02(4) to them on November 26, 2020. CCC prepared its argument and factum on that basis as to the application and the respondents’ motions to:
a. Convert this application to an action; and
b. To strike-out the cross-examination transcripts.
[55] Page 4 of this Notice of Motion indicates it is brought by Mr. Gauthier. Page 2 of the Notice states the motion is brought my Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Poirier.
[56] The Notice of Motion indicates that Messrs. Gauthier and Poirier seek the following orders:
Une ordonnance que cette motion soit entendue au même moment que la motion de l’Appelant dans ces procédures, et de la motion de la Corporation dans l’action no. CV19000797820000;
Une ordonnance radiant les contre-interrogatoires du 17, 19, et 23 novembre 2020
[57] As to the first order requested; CCC 15:
a. is identified in this motion as “l ’appellant”;
b. is the only incorporated party in this proceeding; and
c. has brought an application and not one or more motions as referred to.
[58] The stated grounds for this motion include the following:
a. Les contre-interrogatoires du 17, 19 et 23 novembre 2020.
b. Me Wood mentionne que les contre-interrogatoires sont d’une durée maximale de 7 heures selon la loi 31.05.1 des procédures civiles, et ne veut point considérer autre chose. Ce qui est contradictoire avec le règlement de contre-interrogations car il n’y a aucune règle qui mentionne un temps limite pour des contre-interrogatoires.
31.05.1 (1) Aucune partie ne doit procéder à des interrogatoires préalables oraux pendant plus de sept heures, quel que soit le nombre des parties ou des autres personnes qui doivent être interrogées, sans le consentement des parties ou l’autorisation du tribunal. Règl. de l’Ont. 438/08, art. 29.
c. Sebastien mentionne que les contre-interrogatoires n’ont pas de temps limites afin d’être capable de mettre au clair les instances des affidavits.
d. Le manque de coopération de la firme sollicitée pour ces contre-interrogatoires, fait que les promesses des services en français non point été respecter car la firme avait promis les écrits d’interrogatoires en français dans les délais de 5 jours, mais lors de la confirmation, la firme a décidé de seulement avoir les documents en français dans les délais de 4 à 6 mois. Ceci sont des délais inacceptables.
e. Me Lu a terminé le contre-interrogatoire de M. Poirier et demande de mettre un arrêt au procès-verbal, alors que je mets une objection pour ne pas arrêter le procès-verbal car je mentionne que j’ai des questions pour M Poirier. Me Wood mentionne que seulement les avocats membres du bureau ont le droit de réinterroger alors que ceci enfreint la loi 36.02(2)
36.02(2) Un témoin interrogé en application de la règle 36.01 peut être interrogé, contre-interrogé ou réinterrogé de la même façon qu’un témoin à l’instruction. R.R.O. 1990, Règl. 194, par. 36.02 (2).
f. De plus, les intimées croient que le processus d’embauche de la représentation de la traduction pour les contre-interrogatoires, choisi par la firme juridique, a été peut-être conclu sans processus de sélection puisque si on prend les écrits complets des contre-interrogatoires, il est clair que l'ensemble de la traduction n’est pas à un niveau du besoin de la Cour.
[59] As to the documentary grounds relied upon in support of the motion, the Notice of Motion states:
[60] LA PREUVE DOCUMENTAIRE SUIVANTE sera utilisée lors de l’audition de la motion:
a. Les contre-interrogatoires du 17, 19 et 23 novembre 2020.
[61] The stated ground in paragraph (a) of the motion and the statement therein as to the documentary evidence relied upon, do not identify which of the cross-examinations or portions thereof are referred to. The grounds relied upon in paragraphs (b), (c) and (e) however appear to relate to the conclusion of CCC 15’s cross-examination of Mr. Poirier only, which transcript is not before the court.
[62] The grounds in paragraphs (b) to (f), contain statements of fact which are not in evidence in an affidavit from the respondents following such cross-examinations. The respondents in addition failed to file the unidentified cross-examination transcripts, or the portions thereof in issue.
[63] Rule 31, including R. 31.05.01 relied upon in this motion, relate to Examination for Discoveries in an action and not to the cross-examination of a deponent on their affidavit on an application or motion.
[64] Rule 36.01 and R. 36.01.02 relied upon by the respondents relate to the taking of evidence through examination of a witness before trial, either on consent or by court order. These rules are inapplicable to the cross-examination on these affidavits.
[65] The following rules govern the cross-examination of the deponents on their affidavits in this application:
RÉINTERROGATOIRE
34.11 (1) La personne interrogée au préalable peut être réinterrogée par son avocat et par une partie opposée à la partie interrogatrice.
Contre-interrogatoire sur un affidavit ou interrogatoire à l’appui d’une exécution
(2) La personne contre-interrogée sur un affidavit ou interrogée à l’appui d’une exécution peut être réinterrogée par son avocat. (emphasis added)
[66] These were cross-examinations on affidavits governed by R. 34.11(2). They were not examinations for discovery under R. 34.11(1).
[67] Mr. Gauthier’s acknowledgement that he and the other respondents were not adverse in interest in this proceeding and that he was not a lawyer are two reasons why he was not entitled to re-examine Mr. Poirier pursuant to R. 34.11(2).
[68] Rules 39.02 (1) and 39.03 are relevant to the issues on this motion.
PREUVE ÉTABLIE PAR LE CONTRE-INTERROGATOIRE DU DÉPOSANT DE L’AFFIDAVIT
Motion ou requête
39.02 (1) La partie qui a signifié tous les affidavits qu’elle entend invoquer à l’appui d’une motion ou d’une requête et qui a terminé tous les interrogatoires aux termes de la règle 39.03 peut contre-interroger le déposant d’un affidavit signifié par une partie opposée relativement à la motion ou à la requête. (emphasis added)
[69] The lack of any adverse interest amongst the respondents renders the right to re-examine under R. 39.02(1) inapplicable.
PREUVE PAR INTERROGATOIRE D’UN TÉMOIN
Avant l’audience
39.03 (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe 39.02 (2), une personne peut être interrogée à titre de témoin avant l’audition d’une motion ou d’une requête en instance afin que le tribunal puisse disposer d’une transcription de son témoignage à l’audience
(2) Le témoin interrogé en application du paragraphe (1) peut être contre-interrogé par la partie interrogatrice et par une autre partie, puis réinterrogé par la partie interrogatrice sur des questions soulevées par les autres parties. Le réinterrogatoire peut prendre la forme d’un contre-interrogatoire. (emphasis added)
[70] These were cross-examinations of deponents on their affidavits and are governed by R. 39.02. These were not a R. 39.03 examination of a person who had not filed an affidavit and who’s evidence was sought for a pending hearing or trial. R. 39.03 is inapplicable to the November 17, 19 and 23, 2020 cross-examination of the deponents on their affidavits in this application.
[71] The respondents currently do not know what portions of which transcripts CCC 15 will rely upon in argument of the application.
[72] The respondents have not presented evidence of any relevant portions of the translations conducted during these cross-examinations in support of an allegation that the translator on the cross-examinations lacked qualifications or translated in an appropriate manner. It is noted that the same translator was appointed by the Court and, without objection and evidence from the respondents, acted as the translator during this December 16, 2020 hearing.
[73] In relation to the blanket order sought in paragraph 2 to exclude all cross-examinations conducted during the three days and the ground (f) of this motion relied upon; it is also relevant that the court upon argument of the application will, in the event of a dispute, be able of determining the accuracy of any disputed translated portions of transcripts relied upon by a party in regards to the issues argued, including the power to exclude any portions thereof relied upon.
[74] Mr. Gauthier and Poirier have failed to present the necessary evidence on this motion or prove the grounds relied upon. They have failed to provide a legal basis in support of this motion. This motion accordingly is dismissed.
[75] The issue as to a cost award regarding the dismissal of these three motions is reserved to be argued and determined as part of the application.
Motion to Convert Application to an Action
[76] Pursuant to the order of Master Kaufman, this motion by Mr. Gauthier to convert this proceeding to an action is to be argued together with argument of CCC 15’s application.
[77] CCC 15 on December 16, 2020, was not amenable to the court’s offer to conduct a three-day trail commencing on January 11, 2021, and thereby avoid the necessity to argue Mr. Gauthier’s conversion motion and any resulting time delay to render a decision thereon.
[78] Argument of the application and Mr. Gauthier’s motion to convert this application to an action will proceed via video and audio conference at 10:00 A.M. on January 11, 2021.
Justice Kane
Released: January 4, 2021
COURT FILE: CV-19-00079782-0000
DATE : January 4, 2021
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
CARLETON CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 15
Applicant
– and –
MARC POIRIER, SUZANNE POIRIER, and SEBASTIEN GAUTHIER
Respondents
Decision - Preliminary Motions
Justice Kane
Released: January 4, 2021