Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
2342941 Ontario Inc. v Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2329 - 2019 ONCAT 48 - 2019-12-05
Corporation:
2OITSCC 2329
Date:
2019-12-05
Summary:
In the case of 2342941 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2329, the respondent sought to reopen a case where it was ordered to provide requested records to the applicant. The respondent claimed it was unaware of the case due to its management provider's failure to notify the board of proceedings. The applicant opposed the request to reopen, citing principles of fairness and efficiency. After reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal denied the respondent's motion to reopen the case, highlighting that the respondent had relied on its management provider and failed to take appropriate follow-up actions.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Verdict:
In the case of 2342941 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2329, the motion to reopen the case was denied by the Tribunal. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2329 (TSCC 2329) claimed that their management provider's failure to notify them about the proceedings justified reopening, but the Tribunal found that TSCC 2329 had relied on their management provider and suggested that the applicant should have also been proactive. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no unfairness to TSCC 2329, and the confidentiality provisions of settlement agreements could be addressed between parties' counsel without reopening the case. Legal costs were not awarded to the applicant. The lesson is that parties should actively participate and communicate in legal proceedings, and reliance on third parties may not be a sufficient excuse for non-participation.
Takeaways:
In the case of 2342941 Ontario Inc. v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2329, the respondent, TSCC 2329, sought to reopen a case after a decision was made against them.
TSCC 2329 claimed that their management provider, Larlyn, had failed to notify the board of the proceedings, resulting in their non-participation.
The Tribunal considered whether it would be unfair to TSCC 2329 if the case were not reopened and whether reopening was justified under the Tribunal's rules.
The Tribunal denied TSCC 2329's motion to reopen, emphasizing that the respondent relied on its management provider for communication, but also suggested that the applicant should have questioned Larlyn's performance.
The decision highlighted that issues related to the exemption from disclosure and confidentiality of settlement agreements could be addressed professionally between the parties' counsel without reopening the case. Legal costs were not awarded to the applic
Recommendations:
Proactive Communication: Parties involved in legal proceedings, such as condominium corporations, should maintain proactive communication with their legal representatives and any third-party service providers, like management companies. It is essential to ensure that all parties are aware of the proceedings and fulfill their respective roles to avoid potential issues arising from lack of communication.
Ownership of Responsibility: Parties should take ownership of their obligations in legal matters. While it's reasonable to rely on professionals such as management providers, there should be an understanding that ultimate responsibility lies with the party involved. In this case, the condominium corporation asserted that the unit owner should have questioned the management provider's performance, but the responsibility should also be acknowledged by the corporation itself.
Professional Dispute Resolution: Disputes or concerns related to confidentiality provisions of agreements should be addressed professionally between counsel. Rather than seeking to reopen a case, parties should engage in discussions and negotiations to resolve any concerns related to confidentiality and other issues that may arise during legal proceedings. Maintaining open lines of communication between legal representatives can help preserve ongoing relationships and facilitate more efficient dispute resolution.