Coincidentally, the day I read the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Lexington on the Green Inc. v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1930, (2010 ONCA 751)[Hereinafter  “Lexington”) was the same day that I reviewed a client’s status certificate from the same Condominium  Corporation so it was extra interesting to review this case.Under the Ontario Condominium Act, 1998 S.O. 1998 (Hereinafter the “Act”), within ten days of the condominium  Developer registering the condominium declaration and description, the Developer (also known as the Declarant) has to appoint an interim board of directors (the “Board”) to manage the newly created condominium corporation (Section 42(1) of the Act), until such time that the Declarant no longer owns a majority of the condominium units.  Once the Declarant ceases to own a majority of the units, within 21 days the appointed Board must call a first meeting of the unit owners to elect a new board (section 43(1)).  The Court in Lexington considered Section 112 of the Act, which permits for a newly appointed board of directors to terminate agreements (such as property management and other service agreements) which the appointed interim board has entered into.  The purpose is to discourage and prevent any “sweetheart deals” impropriety between the Developers’s appointed Board and condominium goods and service providers who could very well be subsidiaries of the Developer.

WHAT IS A CONDOMINIUM? The term “condominium” refers to a specific, legal form of owning real estate; not to the physical style of the building, or the particular use of the building.Condominiums are a means of dividing property into some parts which are individually owned, and some parts which are owned in common.A “condominium” can be any kind of building, including a highrise apartment, a low rise apartment, a semi-detached house, a townhouse or commercial unit such as a store or an office.Owners can sell their units, along with their share of the common property.The property taxes, and mortgage, as well as a proportional share of common expenses for each unit, are the responsibility of the owner.

Employees who are wrongfully terminated may have recourse.  Suing for “Wrongful Dismissal” may allow the employee to recover some damages that were caused by the employer.”Wrongful Dismissal” requires that there was a contract of employment, and that the contract has been breached by the employer.  In order for employers and employees to understand their respective rights, and to be able to classify what might constitute wrongful dismissal, the parties must look to the original Employment Contract.More than just termination of a person’s employment can constitute “Wrongful Dismissal”.  Even if the employment is not technically terminated, any breach of the agreement between the employer and the employee may constitute “Constructive Dismissal”.

Many Real Estate transactions wind up breaking down between the point where an Agreement of Purchase and Sale has been signed and the transaction is completed (“closed”). In such cases there are very often financial losses for both parties.Depending on who is at fault, there are avenues for the vendor or purchaser to recover damages from one another. In some cases, either party may also have other avenues to recover losses from somebody else.In most transactions, the parties are represented by Real Estate Agents. Depending on the level of sophistication of the person being represented, the agent has certain fiduciary obligations which, if breached, may cause the agent to be liable for the client’s damages.Your agent has an obligation to act with reasonable skill and care in reviewing the terms of a purchase agreement with you [Wemyss v. Moldenhauer [2003] S.C.J]). If you were forced to breach your Agreement due to some misunderstanding that was caused by an act or omission by your real estate agent, then you may wish to seek legal advice about your various potential avenues to recover your losses.

In a past article, it was discussed that under the Partition Act R.S.O. 1990 (the “Act”) one has a prima facie right to partition or sell a co-owned property in which they have legal and or an equitable interest in.  The presumption is in favour of a partition rather than a sale, however, a sale can be ordered if partition is impossible and if a sale is more advantageous to the parties.  The courts cannot refuse a partition or sale as long as the intent of compelling such is not vexatious, oppressive or malicious.  A recent case from the Ontario Court of Appeal examined what constitutes oppressive conduct in relation to when the remedy available under the Act may be denied.Garfella Apartments Inc. v. Chouduri et. Al. 2010 ONSC 3414 (“Garfella”) is an interesting case in that it deals with an apartment building with a peculiar ownership arrangement.  In Ontario, most apartment buildings are owned by a company (or perhaps several companies) and each unit is rented to tenants.   Another common form of apartment building ownership is a condominium whereby every apartment unit is completely owned by a person(s) and the condominium corporation would manage the entire building but the building is not owned by a

When it comes to labour law, the existence or non-existence of unions in a certain field can make all the difference.With this in mind, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, our Federal police force, are bringing the debate as to whether or not the force should unionize to the internet.In April 2009 Ontario’s Superior Court opened the door to RCMP unionization by striking down federal regulations that prevented RCMP members from forming a union. It also gave the government a deadline to change the law.That deadline passed last October, but the government has introduced the RCMP Labour Relations Modernization Act, bill C-43, which is now slowly making its way through Parliament. The Mounties’ existing Staff Relations Representative Program (SRRP) is not pleased with the proposed law.

One of the most contentious issues in real estate and property is how real property taxes are assessed and charged to the property owner, of course, it is only contentious when one’s property taxes are assessed at a higher rate than it should be.In Ontario, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) is a non-profit corporation created by legislation and is governed mainly by the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, although it also governed by other legislation such as the Assessment Review Board Act R.S.O. 1990, and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Act, 1997.  MPAC’s main duty is to evaluate properties in Ontario in order to assess their tax liability and to classify them for tax purposes as either residential, commercial, industrial, farm, etc.  MPAC looks at many factors when assessing a property but most importantly the following: Sales of comparable properties; location; lot dimensions; living area; age of the property; and quality of construction.  Other factors may include such things as improvements to the property and unique and key features of the property.  Properties belonging to or being used as churches, cemeteries, public education, public hospitals, some non-profit organizations, conservation lands, and lands owned by governments are exempt from property tax.

Other kinds of orders are necessary in estate matters in specified circumstances, Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules), r. 74.15, which can be obtained from the court. For instance, an order for assistance is obtained on a motion made without notice, supported by affidavit evidence, Rules, r. 74.15(2). With certain exceptions, an order for assistance is to be served by personal service or by some other method, as directed by the court. The court can also direct any person to be examined under oath to decide a motion for such an order, Rules, rr. 74.15(3) and (4). Generally, common types of orders for assistance include the following:Order to Accept or Refuse Appointment as Estate Trustee With a Will, r.74.15(1)(a) — Form 74.36When this order is passed, an estate trustee is compelled to apply for a Certificate of Appointment within a given time limit. Failure to do so results in he or she being deemed to have renounced the right to do so. It is a useful tool in situations where a person having a financial interest in an estate comes to know of a will, as also the fact that no steps have been taken by the named estate trustee to apply for a

Submission of Rights to the CourtAfter submitting his or her rights to the court, Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules), r. 75.07.1, a person can either:Request on a motion for directions respecting the conduct of the Application for a Certificate of Appointment; orFile a statement of submission of rights to the court in response to a statement of claim filed by the plaintiff in compliance with the order giving directions. Although he or she is not a party to the proceedings, the person is entitled to written notice of the time and place of the trial and a copy of the judgment disposing of the matter. Such a person is not entitled to costs, nor is he or she liable for any party’s costs, except when the costs are ordered to be paid from the estate. The major benefit of this process is that the matter cannot be settled without his or her involvement.Settlement Involving a Person who has Submitted Rights to the Court

Order for Return of Certificate (Probate already obtained)When a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee (Certificate) has already been issued, the proceedings to challenge a will are not commenced by filing a notice of objection. In that event, the party wishing to challenge the validity of a will has to obtain an order directing the Certificate to be returned to the court, Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules), r. 75.05(1). The order can be obtained on a motion without notice by filing a draft order and an affidavit in support, specifying the interest of the party applying for the order, and the general grounds upon which the order is requested for. According to the order, the Estate Trustee is to return the original Certificate of Appointment to the court forthwith. After the order has been served on the Estate Trustee, the appointment has no further effect and no further action can be taken with respect to the administration of the estate until the issues respecting the validity of the will have been determined, or the court orders the Certificate to be released back to the estate trustee, Rules, r. 75.05(3).