|
CASE LAW
Exhibits the various case law that is referred to in the case.
This is not an exhaustive list, but rather a display of some of the
most important authorities.
Enforcing a Consent Order Against Third Parties
Fitzwanga v. Environmental Disaster Research Foundation (1999)
Parties to a Consent Order attempt to use the seal of the court
to enforce their Consent Order against third parties. Judge
calls it "fraudulent and illegal" and a "serious abuse of the court
process". Exhibited to show the parallel of what happened at
Silver Point.
Authority to Amend a Consent Order
Noel Ayangma v. French School Board and Gabriel Arsenault (2011)
This case deals with the legal authority of the courts to amend a
Consent Order. It states that a Consent Order can only be
amended in one of two ways: via the Slip rule (to correct a
typographical error) or to clarify the manifest intention of the
court. Exhibited to show that the court had no authority to
amend the Consent Order as it did in March, 2010.
Highway Customs Warehouse v. The Queen (2007)
Similar to the above case, the court is functus after a Consent
Order and does not have jurisdiction to amend the Order except to
clarify typographical errors or the intent of the court.
Exhibited to further show that the court had no authority to amend
the Consent Order.
Acquiescence and Laches in a Condominium
York Condominium Corporation No. 35 v. 6 unit owners (1995)
A condominium sues 6 unit owners to force them to make changes to
their windows. The court rules that laches and acquiescence
applied and the association could not sleep on its rights. Exhibited
to show the similarity to this case, and that the BOD has no
authority to make unit owners change their windows or anything else
where owners have equitable rights.
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation v. Hadbavny (2001)
A Board's past failure to enforce the byelaws constitutes
sleeping on their rights, and therefore they have no authority to
enforce the byelaw now. Board has no authority to place
conditions on payment of legal fees. Exhibited to show
acquiescence and laches prevent BOD from attempting to enforce
15(2)(b) of the Declaration now or in the future.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Condo Directors Equates to
Constructive Fraud
La Salle National Trust v. Board of Directors (1997)
Board of Directors have a fiduciary duty to the condominium owners,
and breaching of that duty is paramount to constructive fraud.
The Board of Directors are found to be in Breach of Fiduciary Duty
and are ordered to pay damages. Exhibited to show Breach of
Fiduciary Duty of the BOD and that the Consent Order was obtained
through fraud.
Non-Party Costs Against Directors
Dymocks Franchise Systems v. Todd, Bilgola and Lambton Quay (2001)
Privy Counsel states that a non-party who substantially controls the
proceedings should be liable for costs, regardless of who is funding
the proceedings. Exhibited to show that the Board Members, not
the Association, were in control of the proceedings, and should bear
the costs.
Goodwood v. Breen (2005)
Similar to the above case. The whole of the costs were
caused by the third party, and would not have occurred except for
his dishonesty and impropriety. Therefore he was ordered to
pay costs of the action. Exhibited to show that as the BOD
caused these costs by Breaching their Fiduciary Duty and acting
without authority, they should be ordered to pay the costs
personally.
More Cases Exhibited:
SPCA Trial Bundle of Authorities
Metaxides Trial Bundle of Authorities
|
