Patriarcki v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 621, 2014 ONSC 1507
Decision Date: April 15, 2014
http://canlii.ca/t/g6kvx
Ms. Patriarcki brought a claim against the condominium corporation and two contractors (Shields Mechanical and Ideal Combustion) because of ongoing problems with the boiler in her unit from about May to October 2006. The boilers in each unit of the corporation were replaced in November 2006. Shortly after Ms. Patriarcki complained of fumes from the new boiler on start up and requested an inspection by the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA). The inspector found that fumes were a product of off-gassing of the glues used to install the boiler, that no carbon monoxide was present, and that a complete air quality analysis would be Ms. Patriarcki’s responsibility (not the contractor’s). The corporation made things worse (alleges Ms. Patriarcki) by installing new synthetic carpeting in her unit. (New commercial carpets can produce off-gassing for one to two years.) Ms. Patriarcki claimed that her health suffered as a result of these different irritants, with problems including unmanageable asthma, multiple chemical sensitivities and chronic fatigue syndrome. She supplied medical reports dated 2012 in support of these claims.
In this action, the judge agreed to the defendants’ request for summary judgment dismissal. The medical reports supplied by Ms. Patriarcki did not give evidence of a causal connection between the boilers and her health problems, and she did not provide any evidence linking the boilers with the poor air quality in her unit.
Comment: In asking for submissions on costs, the judge noted that he was sympathetic to the various health difficulties suffered by the plaintiff.
Kim v. Trump, 2014 ONSC 2129
Decision Date: April 22, 2014
http://canlii.ca/t/g6mgf
Between 2007 and 2011 the plaintiffs entered into agreements to purchase units in the Trump Hotel. They took occupancy of these units in February 2012 and entered into the Reservation Program Agreement. According to this agreement, the Trump Hotel Management Corp. would rent out the units and each owner would receive revenue from the rental of their unit, with fees, expenses and charges deducted. The plaintiffs charge that the rental and occupancy rates were lower than they had anticipated and the deductions were higher. They asked to see the financial statements for the entire Reservation Program (rather than just their own units), and these requests were denied. In November 2012 the plaintiffs refused to close the purchase agreements and instead issued a statement of claim. They seek to have the agreements rescinded and their deposits returned, and claim damages for loss of opportunity, misrepresentation and conspiracy.
In this action the plaintiffs name eight defendants and seek an order appointing an inspector to investigate the Reservation Program; in the alternative they seek an order compelling production of financial documents. This motion was dismissed. The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2267, named as one of the defendants, sought an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ action on the grounds that they were incorporated only in October 2012 and so the plaintiffs have no cause of action against them. Judge Carole Brown agreed. She granted the defendant’s motion on the grounds that TSCC No. 2267 did not exist when the plaintiffs entered into the purchase agreement.
Comment: The judge provided a number of detailed arguments for dismissing the plaintiffs’ motion.
Another case involving the Trump Tower can be found in last month’s Condo Law Digest (scroll down to the third case.)
Never miss a post: Use the “subscribe” box on this page to receive notification of every new post. Or to learn about new Condo Law posts only, get in touch using the contact form and I’ll add your email address to the Condo Law List.