Canadian Counter-Dictionary, and Human Rights' Violations in Canada
Major Nourhaghighi in the Courtroom 1988
Justice Moladvar in 1998 was member of Panel
Now Supreme Court of Canada. Judge had
Serious Objection to Mark Arnold that
He has changed his position and
Now Supreme Court of Canada. Judge had
Serious Objection to Mark Arnold that
He has changed his position and
while he was crying said
Your Honor WE LOVE
Major Nourhaghighi
Stay in Condo!
Your Honor WE LOVE
Major Nourhaghighi
Stay in Condo!
The Bastard Jewish MArk Lawyer Arnold that
His Law Firms known to be Best Condo's Lawyers
asked Extreme Remedy Against Major Nourhaghihi
o force Major sell his property less than Market Value
to Jewish residents of Condo 935***************************
His Law Firms known to be Best Condo's Lawyers
asked Extreme Remedy Against Major Nourhaghihi
o force Major sell his property less than Market Value
to Jewish residents of Condo 935***************************
Court File = C24450
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No.935
(Applicant),Appellant
vs.
Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi
(Respondent), Respondent
In the following courts proceedings Major Nourhaghighi (Major) was the "Respondent".
The Condo 935 in accordance to a plan of Board's Conspiracy, tried to force him to sell his property by the way of Application.
On March 27, 1996, Madam Justice Boland has dismissed the Application with costs to Major that yet not paid by Condo. The Condo has appealed the decision.
On July 15, 1998 three judges Austin, Moldaver and Borins JJ.A have heard the appeal and dismissed it as extreme relive seeked by Condo 935 against that he Major must sell his property, and granted Major's relief for water damage.. You can search for all names of the members of Board and Mangers involved in Canadian Counter-Dictionary who since 1996 in accordance to conspiracy with corupt employeees of the Attorney General of Ontario, Crown Civil Law, have disobeyed Boland Order and the Order of Court of Appeal. Thus Major's motion for contempt proceeding is pending before the Court. [Courts' Files Numbers: Ontario Court General Division-Re6244/96,Court of Appeal- C24450]
The Condo 935 in accordance to a plan of Board's Conspiracy, tried to force him to sell his property by the way of Application.
On March 27, 1996, Madam Justice Boland has dismissed the Application with costs to Major that yet not paid by Condo. The Condo has appealed the decision.
On July 15, 1998 three judges Austin, Moldaver and Borins JJ.A have heard the appeal and dismissed it as extreme relive seeked by Condo 935 against that he Major must sell his property, and granted Major's relief for water damage.. You can search for all names of the members of Board and Mangers involved in Canadian Counter-Dictionary who since 1996 in accordance to conspiracy with corupt employeees of the Attorney General of Ontario, Crown Civil Law, have disobeyed Boland Order and the Order of Court of Appeal. Thus Major's motion for contempt proceeding is pending before the Court. [Courts' Files Numbers: Ontario Court General Division-Re6244/96,Court of Appeal- C24450]
The Respondent’s Reply,
and the Additional Facts C24450
and the Additional Facts C24450
1. The Respondent expressly denies each and every allegation contained in the Appellant’s Factum; except as maybe hereinafter admitted.
2. The Appellant’s Factum has mixed different issues and facts in many of the paragraphs. The Appellant’s malicious accusations and the repetition of the facts in each paragraph, has made difficulty in reply for the unrepresented Respondent. In the light of the severity of the orders sought from this Honourable Court; the Respondent has presented the reply to issues in different paragraphs and additional facts relied on.
Appellant’s Factum , paragraphs 1 to 8
3. With reference to paragraph 1 of the Appellant’s Factum, the Respondent agrees that Madam Justice Boland, of the Ontario Court (General Division); heard the Appellant’s Application on February 15, 1996. The learned judge reserved judgment for 41 days, and evaluated all the materials in the most reasonable way among the parties, and dismissed the application with costs; the orders in paragraph 1, are not same as the reasoning of the learned judge, and the Notice of the Appeal. In addition thereto, the Appellant has failed to put into evidence any transcript of the hearing before Madam Justice Boland.
Appeal Book; Tab C, Reasons of the Honourable Madam Justice Boland Tab A, Notice of Appeal,
4. The Appellant’s application was brought in very short notice by breaches of the Rule 38.
The Appellant maliciously has denied the Respondent’s right of proper and full answer.The Affidavit of Joseph Vero, in 21 paragraphs and with 17 exhibits, presented to the court without giving any chance of the cross-examination. Vero, was the Property Manager from January 1994, he does not had personal knowledge of the facts from April 1991 to 1994. Exhibit "A" to Affidavit of Joseph Vero, is partial transcript of the proceeding; where the Respondent has served to the Appellant the full transcript of the said proceeding; where the Appellant’s officers and the City of Toronto Inspectors, have given evidence to the Court. The Appeal Book does not have any evidence from the Appellant’s officers who have regular meetings since 1991; and have full knowledge and minutes of the of all proceedings, and matters discussed at the annul general meeting, since 1992.
The Appellant maliciously has denied the Respondent’s right of proper and full answer.The Affidavit of Joseph Vero, in 21 paragraphs and with 17 exhibits, presented to the court without giving any chance of the cross-examination. Vero, was the Property Manager from January 1994, he does not had personal knowledge of the facts from April 1991 to 1994. Exhibit "A" to Affidavit of Joseph Vero, is partial transcript of the proceeding; where the Respondent has served to the Appellant the full transcript of the said proceeding; where the Appellant’s officers and the City of Toronto Inspectors, have given evidence to the Court. The Appeal Book does not have any evidence from the Appellant’s officers who have regular meetings since 1991; and have full knowledge and minutes of the of all proceedings, and matters discussed at the annul general meeting, since 1992.
Appeal Book; Tab C, Madam Justice Boland, page 7-lines 8,9, page9-lines 10-12; Tab E(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs, 2, 3, 5; Exhibits in pages, 198- lines1: Kay Alexander, 199- Signed: Todd Smith Tab D(2)(A), transcript of proceeding Oct 28/94, page 25*Index of Witnesses *Caution: Appeal Book’s page numbers are not correct
5. The Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Appellant’s Factum. In addition thereto, the Appellant has failed to put structural plan of the building in front of the court; to indicate the Recreation Facilities location over 6 units; and at least five units, 606, 608, 610, 806 and 808 were disturbed by operation of the Weight Machine; the condominium building was new and it had all warranties, and the Appellant was aware of all defects; there is nothing in the material to indicate that any serious investigation has taken place; or any damages has been paid to the Respondent for defects.
Appeal Book, Tab C, Madam Justice Boland, page 8-lines2-5, page 9-line 4 Tab E(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs 1; Tab D(2)(D), Action 94-CU-81970CM, paragraph 7; Tab D(2)(E), Action 95-CU-84058 paragraph 57, 85.
6. Since April 1991 by invasion of the Respondent’s interest in private use and enjoyment of his property. On May 15, 1997, at 8:55 p.m., a dirty water with bad smell leaks to the kitchen, over food and dishes, desk and floor and made a big mass at dinner time; causing serious disturbances and annoyance. At 10:15 p.m. the Street Watch Security Officer, entered to the property and inspect the area. On May 4, 1997, the Respondent informed the Appellant in respect to on going disturbances at Exercise Room. In these hard condition, response to malicious allegations of the Appellant, which does not have legal fundamental, was prepared.
Appeal Book, Tab E(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraph 5- line 1-7 Exhibits in page 198- line 17-23, pages 199, 200-no.1&2 201, lines 1-6, 202, 203-plumbing$42,837, 210-plumbing $16,756
7. With reference to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Appellant’s Factum, the Respondent agrees with statements therein only to extent that numerous court proceedings were commenced; when the Appellant maliciously did not respond to the complaints and with very high hand manner and arrogant attitude ignored the all notices of the Respondent’s Solicitor, Gary Steinberg.
Appeal Book Tab E(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraph 5-14 Exhibit in page 200- last paragraph-lines 1and
8. The Appellant did not reply to allegations of the frauds from the accounts of the corporation, water penetration and noise disturbances to his unit. The Appellant never replied properly to the serious allegations of theft, private nuisance and negligence and other wrongs in the statement of claim; by evidence under the oath or filing the Statement of Defence.
Appeal Book: Tab E(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs1-15, and
Exhibits for, noise disturbances, fraud and water penetration in pages 198-211
Tab D(2)(D) Action 94-CU-91870CM, paragraphs 4-19 fraud, 20 water penetration, 21 theft, 21-24 noise disturbances,
Exhibits for, noise disturbances, fraud and water penetration in pages 198-211
Tab D(2)(D) Action 94-CU-91870CM, paragraphs 4-19 fraud, 20 water penetration, 21 theft, 21-24 noise disturbances,
9. With reference to paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Appellant’s Factum; the Respondent agrees with the statements therein only to the extend that he made numerous complaints against severe noise originating from the Recreation area and Exercise Room and water penetration since 1991.
10. With reference to paragraphs 3 and 6 of the Appellant’s Factum; the Respondent agrees with the statements therein only to the extend that he did not allowed entry to his property to the particular Appellant’s officer, Joseph Vero, who was accused of theft, in the Respondent’s actions; and there was conflict of interest. Vero abused his position to create mental stress for the Respondent by many different tricks. While the other person authorized by the Appellant have perform their duties and objects of the corporation at the Respondent’s unit. Vero was removed from its position as the Property Manager. On November 13, 1996, Mr. John Morielli, the Property Manager, entered to the Respondent’s unit for investigation of the noise disturbances and water penetration. He is currently investigating the noise disturbances within various units. At the same time, the Appellant could assess noise at units 606 and 610. The structural plans of the building maliciously was not forwarded to the court. The cement ceiling is not sound proof and units are small; noise disturbing many owners. The Appellant’s malice against the Respondent is for antagonizing, impoverishing and intimidating.
Appeal Book; Tab C, Madam Justice Boland, page 8-line 17, page 9-line 1-9 Tab E(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraph 5, Exhibit in pages 201,202, Tab D(2)(D), Action 94-CU-81970CM, paragraph 21(page 46) line 8, paragraph 29-lines 11-14
11. Since April 1991, the Appellant’s officers, servants and contractors are continually entering to the Respondent’s units for particular jobs(water leak, and noise disturbances) that could be done in few months, if the Appellant was honest and had professional conduct. The Appellant’s officers and contractors without any notice, at any unreasonable time were seriously disturbing the Respondent and his family, for continuous disturbances and damages by entering to the property; the Appellant abuses its right of entry for nuisances. The Appellant never perform any serious investigation in regard of the said complaints.
Appeal Book; Tab C, Madam Justice Boland, page 9-lines 3-9 Tab E(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 Exhibits in page 198- lines 19-26, pages 199-201
12. The Respondent has no knowledge in the rest of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Appellant’s Factum; that resolution was passed against him; and his court proceeding would be interpreted as a nuisance within the meaning of Rule 7 of the rules of the corporation. He had rights as member of the corporation to be informed, before any court action be commenced against him. There is not any evidence in the Appeal Book, to indicate that any letter or massage was send by the Board of Directors, or their representatives to complain against the court proceedings prior to passing a resolution against him. While the Respondent, before any court proceeding has brought his complaints to the attention of the Appellant’s officers.
Appeal Book; Tab E(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraph 5, 10, 12 Exhibits in pages 198, 199, 206, Tab D(2)(D), Action 94-CU-81970CM, page 47, paragraph 22, lines2-6 ,page 48, paragraph 24, lines 9-11, page 49- lines 7-9
13. In addition thereto, the Appellant has passed the said resolution on Saturday Jan 27, 1996, and on January 30, 1996, Vero’s affidavit with 17 exhibits (from different offices) was sworn; and on Feb 1, 1996; the court proceeding, against the Respondent, was registered. In less than 7 days, the most serious legal act was commenced; but in over 2555 days, noise and water penetration nuisances do not any have any solution. This is clear demonstration of MALICE.
Appeal Book; Tab D(2), Affidavit of Joseph Vero, paragraph 14 and Exhibit "M" Tab E(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraph 5 and 12, and Exhibits in pages 198-202,Tab D(2)(D) Action 94-CU-81970CM, paragraph 20 and 22
14. The Respondent expressly denies the rest of the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Appellant’s Factum. There is NOT any document in the Appeal Book to confirm such allegation. The Respondent states that, since March 1991, the exercise room is OPEN to the community. The Professional Engineer of the City of Toronto, in May 1992, and May 1993, has inspect the Recreation Area, and declared the violation of the By-law against the Appellant. The ambiguous statement of: " the exercise room equipment! ", is made to mislead the court, when does not specify: the rope, the hoop, the disc barbell, the stepper, the bars, the bicycles, the double paddles, with moving sit,- the weight machine and other equipment. Vero’s evidence does not say the Exercise Room was closed; he ambiguously and maliciously connecting the "the exercise room" to the " equipment"; to draw misleading malicious conclusions in contradictory evidences of the Affidavit of Joseph Vero, Appeal Book Page 21, Paragraph 16: Line 3: " gone as far as closing the exercise room equipment…" Line 4: " The exercise room equipment has been disabled since May 1993*" Line 8 and 9: " thereby permitting room to be open… Page 183, Exhibit "P", document dated October 24, 1995* " 9:53 am Knocked on the door- no answer Called Audrey Loeb to review 10:15 am Turned on shower in women’s change room and used WEIGHT MACHINE in gym(exercise room)* " *In Line 4, Vero alleged that the equipment " has been disabled" since May 1993 -Exhibit "P";Vero used Weight Machine in gym at 10:15 am. Therefore, the Weight Machine was not disable. Since April 1991, the Appellant’s contractors continuously entering the Respondent’s unit and turning showers and pipes and activating weight machine and whirlpool pumps to create nuisance that the Respondent be forced to sell his property. The Weight Machine, is a huge equipment, with big dangerous metal arms, that it does not fit the small Exercise Room at 7th floor. It has 200 Kilograms metal plates weights. The metal plates weights hits each other when the arms be pulled. It seems impossible to remove noise disturbances from this equipment by any changes at 6th, 7th, and 8th floors. On April 1993, the Appellant has purchased the Weight Machine without any professional study when there was complaints against noise from owners.
Appeal Book; Tab E(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraph 12, Exhibit No.3, pages 207-209; tab D(2)(D), page 48, paragraph 24, lines 9-11
15. With reference to the rest of the paragraph 6 of the Appellant’s Factum; the Respondent expressly denies the allegations therein; particularly he denies that the noise assessment can be down only through his property. The Respondent’s Factum in paragraphs 6, 8, 10, 13 contain reply to the rest of the allegations therein.
16. In addition thereto; the Appellant was successful in numerous trials at Ontario Court, Provincial Division, to prove the noise disturbances from Exercise Room was not any unnecessary noise; and the Respondent’s complaints was frivolous; and dismissed the Respondent’s appeal; on April 22, 1996; and immediately, has filed this appeal on the same day; that Madam Boland J. erred in law that not allowed sound barrier be installed among the Respondent’s unit and the Exercise Room. The Appellant’s representations at Ontario Court are the best possible cases for abuse of the court process.
Appeal Book; Tab E(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi. Paragraph 12 Tab D(2)(A), partial transcript of Oct 28/94, page 26-lines23-32
17. The Respondent expressly denies the malicious allegations contains in paragraph 7 of the Appellant’s Factum; particularly, there is no evidence in material to support the bald allegation of Vero that the Respondent is a danger to others in the building; but it has injured greatly the Respondent’s character and reputation in the community, Vero, was not the resident of the building, and his malicious allegation was not supported by any of the Respondent’s neighbors. The Appellant has never got any order against the Respondent to obligate him.
The Respondent’s Factum in paragraphs 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 contain evidence of dishonestly \of the Appellant and it officers, particularly Joseph Vero, Property Manager, who was discharge, in 1996..Appeal Book; Tab C, Madam Justice Boland, pages 7-lines 11-13, 8-line 16, 9-lines 1-3 and 12-14
18. In addition thereto; the Respondent is a single parent, with two adults unemployed children . He is out of any income from employment since 1994, due to physical injuries raised out of motor vehicle accident. The building has perfect location for the Respondent and his children; it is close to school and medical centers. Therefore, he has intention to stay there; and all defects should be repaired according to plan and the Building Code. The Appellant who was accused dishonestly in attacked to all Respondent’s benefits and business, since August 1991. The only allegation of the Appellant against is that the Respondent is, that he was military officer in Iran; where the Employment and Immigration Canada, had all information of the Respondent and his family; than has given them landed documents; when they were living in Germany.
Appeal Book, Tab C, Madam Justice Boland, page 8-lines2-5, page 9-line 4 Tab E(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraphs 1;Tab D(2)(D), Action 94-CU-81970CM, paragraph 7; Tab D(2)(E), Action 95-CU-84058 paragraph 57, 85. Tab D(2) Affidavit of Joseph Vero paragraph 20- lines 1 and 2
19. The Respondent has been greatly injured in his character, credit and reputation in the community by attending of two Metro Police Officers at his property and trespassing; without any order from the court. The Respondent’s feelings, dignity and pride have been severely injured by the Appellant’s conducts in last six years; particularly in May 1, 1996, the Appellant by request of Superintendent and his assistant was arrested at annual general meeting and has forced to leave the meeting in front of all his neighbors. He has greatly injured in his character and reputation in front of his children and his community. He is suffering emotional stress and nervous upset and stress of all these abuses the court process and his legal rights. The Appellant continuously since 1991, threats the Respondent and his family by its Superintendents, officers, Security Officers and the Metro Police. The Respondent and his family wish that allegation of danger against him or his family be tried at Ontario Court General Division, with all allegation that he had against the Appellant’s officers and superintendents. The Respondent’s unit has serious defects and his loses will be great if he be forced to sell by order of the court. He and his children are out of any employment, and they can not pay all costs involved in selling and purchase of another property; particularly no bank will given to any one of them mortgage.
Appeal Book; Tab D(2)(0), Affidavit of Joseph Vero, page 182, lines 1-11, 183: "1203 pm" Tab D(2)(E), Action 95-CU-84058, page 98, paragraphs 194, 19
20. The Respondent admits to the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Appellant’s Factum. The application was brought by a group of the corrupted solicitors who were involved in numerous wrongdoing at the condominium corporation, and the Respondent’s legal business. The Respondent under the oath has presented evidence of the Appellant’s frauds in the accounts of the condominium corporation to the court. On June 6, 1992, the Metropolitan Toronto Police, Fraud Squad, was investigating the manipulation of the accounts;the Police declared to the Respondent that has intention to charge the Board of Directors for fraud. In addition thereto, the solicitors who were directly responsible for different causes of fraudulent misrepresentation were: Henry G. Gertner, the Respondent’s Solicitor who purchased the defective unit 608 and did several frauds in document of the Agreement of purchased and caused four years harassment of the Cityscape Real States, and trial proceedings against the Respondent; in August 1995, the action of was dismissed. The Appellant’s President of the Board of Directors, Stephen McCann, who was involved in numerous wrongdoing at the condominium.
Appeal Book; Tab E(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraph 5, 9 and 10, Exhibits in pages 198, 200, 203-206,210 Tab D(2)(D), Action 94-CU-91790CM, paragraphs 4-18
21. The Appellant’s frauds under the Criminal Code of Canada; caused to planned to make the Respondent busy in misleading objects, to delay the charges. In 1992, the Respondent as the owner of the condominium had right to review the book of the record of the corporation. The Appellant, since 1992, trying all possible ways to force the Respondent sell his unit.
Appeal Book; Tab E(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraph 5,page 198-lines 1-16
22. Gary Steinberg, was introduced by the Law Society of the Upper Canada to the Respondent as a solicitor who was specialist in the Condominium Act. Steinberg, has office at College Street, were the Appellant’s building located. Steinberg, maliciously asked from the Respondent to suspend contribution to the common expenses; till the Appellant response to complaints. On November 1993, in sudden the Appellant got notice of the power of sale; Steinberg maliciously was asking to ignore the notice. The Law Society of Upper Canada, by having full evidence of professional misconduct; refused to charge Steinberg. Appeal Book; TabE(3), Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraph 5, line-11,Exhibit in page 200, last line: " suspension of maintenance fees." Tab D(2)(H), Action against Steinberg, page 120- lines 10-35
23. In addition thereto, The Appellant’s Solicitor, Rosanne Giuletti, was one of the applicants in application heard by Wilkins J; here in the only place that the Respondent’s Solicitor; Steinberg, and the Appellant’s Solicitors, Giuletti, in 1993; they made agreement to attack to the Respondent for staying trials against them. Where the Law Society of the Upper Canada, refused to open any file for the complaint made by then Respondent against Giuletti.
Appeal Book; TabD(2)(E), Action 95-CU-84058, page 56*, paragraph 41,45, 46 page 61, paragraph 76-81, page 98, paragraph 194, caution: Appeal Book page numbers are not correct
24. Success of Giuletti, in front of lost of Gardiner, Blumberg; indicate Giuletti lack of professional knowledge. This appeal is job of =Gardiner, Blumberg[Mark Arnold]; and motion at Tab D(2)(3), indicate the level of the professional knowledge of the member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Attack against the action which was registered in 1994, by a motion under rule 21 in 1996, and with same material which was heard on June 28, 1995. Rule 21 instructed the motion shall be made promptly. But, Giuletti, proceed on hearing of the motions under Rule 21; before she be able to bring a motion to remove the default against the Appellant.
25. Since 1991, over one hundred thousand dollars has been paid to the several law firms and accounts to cover up the wrongdoing of the Appellant, Since 1992, the members of the board of directors, have selected their husbands as the superintendent and his assistants of the building; The Toronto United Church Council, has very oppressive reciprocal agreement with the Appellant and abusing the common elements by their permanent member of the Board. Most of the owners are minority with low income and have big loses due to legal proceedings of the bankruptcy of the Appellant and Church in 1989. The Appellant with arbitrary and clear unwarranted exercise of discretion directing the corporation with clear the abuse of statutory power; and reasonableness. The Appellant in a very high-handed manner, callous and arrogant attitude misconduct with the Respondent and his children.
Appeal Book; TabE(3) Affidavit of Keyvan Nourhaghighi, paragraph 5, Exhibit in pages 203-211 Tab D(2)(D), Action 94-CU-81890CM, paragraph 4-8, "M. Theis-Church, Tab D(2)(E), Action 95-CU-84058, paragraphs 194&195 "Metro Police" Tab D(2)(O)(P), Affidavit of Joseph Vero, pages 182&183 "Metro Police"
PART II
RESPONSE TO THE APPELLANT’S ISSUES
26. The Appellant has failed to put into evidence any transcript of the hearing on February 15, 1996. It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that submitted there is no purported dialogue between Madam Justice Boland and the Appellant, upon which the Appellant relies. It is further submitted that even if these brief verbal exchanges had a basis in evidence before this Honourable Court, there is nothing in the exchanges which could provide a reason in law for this Court to interfere with the decision of Honourable Madam Justice Boland.
Appellant’s Factum paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
FIRST ISSUE: Is the condominium corporation entitled to enter Suite 608, 456 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, pursuant to provisions of Section IX(1) of the Declaration and Section 6(4) of the Condominium Act?
27. It is submitted the provisions of the aforesaid law, does not apply to the circumstances of the facts of this case; where the Appellant’s responsibility to complaints relating to repair of the common elements was prompt and diligent as manner as possible. Declaration, Section 4, Management Agreement.Management Agreement, section 5.4, Manager’s Duties
28. In addition thereto, the Appellant abused reasonableness of the provision of the Rights of Enter in repair of water leakage and noise disturbances over last 2555 days; and interfered seriously with use and enjoyment of the Respondent’s property; by continuous discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience for the Respondent, his families, gusts and visitors.
Private Nuisance- Noise Disturbance,
Roya Anne Hotel Co v. Ashcroft; Saito V. Aschcroft,
[1979] 2 W.W.R.462, 8, C.C.L.T., 179, 9, M.P.L.R., 176, 95, D.L.R.(3d)756; Private Nuisance- Water Penetration Connery v. Man [1971] 4 w.w.r. 154, 21 D. L. R. (3d) 234 (Man. C.A.)
Roya Anne Hotel Co v. Ashcroft; Saito V. Aschcroft,
[1979] 2 W.W.R.462, 8, C.C.L.T., 179, 9, M.P.L.R., 176, 95, D.L.R.(3d)756; Private Nuisance- Water Penetration Connery v. Man [1971] 4 w.w.r. 154, 21 D. L. R. (3d) 234 (Man. C.A.)
29. The Appellant’s particular officer, Vero, was accused of theft in the Respondent’s actions, has lost part of his jurisdiction, for few months, during seven years ownership of the Respondent. on thereto: Theft is an indictable offence :
330.(1) Every one who commits theft who, having received anything for any person on terms that require him to account for or pay it or proceeds of it or the proceeds of it or a part of the proceeds to that person or another person, fraudulently fails to account for or pay it or the proceeds of it or the part of the proceeds of it accordingly.
Section of 330(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada The Rules of Civil Procedure require proper reply to the allegations contained in the statement of claim against the defendants: Rule 25.07(2) Subject to subrule(6), all allegations of fact that are not denied in a party’s defence shall be deemed to be admitted unless the party pleads having no knowledge in respect of the fact.The Standard of the care is the mandatory requirement for every officer and director of the corporation under the Condominium Act: 24.(1) Every director and officer of a corporation shall exercise the powers and discharge the duties of his her office honestly and in good faith.
30. In addition thereto, the Appellant has failed to inform the particulars of the repairs, and any structural changes to be down with all plans and time schedules to at the Respondent’s unit.
There is not any evidence in the record to that indicate the Appellant has provided or would be provide accommodation, such as Hotel and all its expenses for the Respondent and his family during construction in his home.
31. It is respectfully submitted this issue being mootness as that the Appellant has removed Vero; and immediately was allowed to enter to the Respondent’s proper for investigation; therefore the Respondent request this issue be quashed.
SECOND ISSUE: Is the condominium corporation entitled to an order that the Exercise Room and equipment shall be opened and made freely accessible for the use and enjoyment of all members of the condominium community pursuant to section III(1) of the Declaration and section 7 of the Condominium Act?
32. Section 2 of By-law N0. 44-75 of the City of Toronto prohibits any noise from any machine or device that disturbs or likely to disturb the peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort, or convenience of any persons in any type of residence.
33. Rule 12 of the Declaration prohibits the noise caused by any instrument or other device, or any person be calculated to or does disturb the comfort of the other owners.
34. It is submitted that the Professional Engineer and Commissioner of the Department of Public Works and the Environment of the City of Toronto, in May 1992 and May 1993 investigate the Respondent’s complaints and declared "CLEAR VIOLATION" of the law against the Appellant. But the Appellant with the abuse of discretion and clear unwarranted exercise of discretion; with very high handed manner and arrogant attitude allowed the Recreation Area and Exercise Room be open to all members; and never shut down the facility for repairs.
York Condominium Corp. No.332 v. Navratil ( June 26, 1979), Webb J.
Rules and By-law 1 of the condominium corporation which prohibited the causing of noise and the creating of a nuisance disturbing the comfort and quit enjoyment of the property by the other people in the condominium and the keeping of dogs, were valid and enforceable.
Rules and By-law 1 of the condominium corporation which prohibited the causing of noise and the creating of a nuisance disturbing the comfort and quit enjoyment of the property by the other people in the condominium and the keeping of dogs, were valid and enforceable.
35. In addition there to that the Appeal Book and the Affidavit of Joseph Vero, do not have any evidence that indicate the Exercise Room was closed. There was not any order or decision that the exercise room be closed. There was not any order or decision that any equipment be disabled and not be used. The Appellant since 1991 allowing severe noises disturb the Respondent and his family. Currently there is complaint against excessive noises of the Exercise Room; that the Appellant did not replying. Therefore, the Respondent request this issue be quashed for being devoid of merit.
Popoff v. Krafczyk, [1990] B.C.W.D. 2183, leave to C.A. appeal refused
Marker v. Davanne Hldg.Ltd.,[1954] O.R. 935,[1955] 1 D.L.R. 728(H.C.)
Marker v. Davanne Hldg.Ltd.,[1954] O.R. 935,[1955] 1 D.L.R. 728(H.C.)
THIRD ISSUE: Do the facts of this case justify an order that the respondent be required to sell his unit pursuant to Section 49(2) of the Condominium Act?
36. It is submitted the fact of this case is the best justification of the Appellant’s abuse of discretion and abuse of the court process. The Appellant owes duties to the Respondent; most part of the Condominium Act and the Deceleration addressing to the Appellant’s responsibilities:
Section 24.(1) Every director and officer of a corporation shall exercise the power and discharge the duties of his or her office HONESTLY and in GOOD FAITH. Section 24.(2) No director or officer of a corporation shall be indemnified by the corporation in respect of any liability, costs, charges…… Section 26.(1)(3)(e): the existing warranties and guarantees for all the equipment, fixtures and chattels included in the sale of either the units or common elements that are not protected by warranties and guarantees given directly to a unit purchaser; Section 28. (1)(d): to GOVERN the management of the property; Section 28.(1)(e): to GOVERN the maintenance of the units and common element, Section 29. (2): The rules shall be REASONABLE and CONSISTENT with this Act, the declaration and the by-laws, Section 40.(1): Every person in receipt of money paid to or for the befit of the corporation shall, upon reasonable notice and during business hours, make available for examination by the corporation or any owner or mortgagee, all records relating to the receipt and disposition of such money.
37. It is submitted the Appellant never had honestly, therefore in can never govern the corporation as it could not make available its record for examination; therefore, the Appellant resorted to a legal process against him solely for antagonizing, impoverishing and intimidating the Respondent to sell his property.
38. In addition thereto; the Respondent and his children, with full study of the location and the beautiful historical design of the building have purchased property for a family Home; they have friendly neighbours and they have plan to stay in their Home. Particularly, they are new immigrants to Canada; with their own culture that looks to the Home as a permanent stationary residential object for continuous living. In the Respondent’s family tradition a Home is not an object to sell; when a man purchased a property; it will remain for use of his children; and grand children; and it has never been suggest that even children after death of parent sell the Home.
39. In addition thereto; most of the corrupted members of the board of directors they have resigned and sold and left the building; certainly, many others corrupted member of the corporation will feel isolation, and before the hearing of this appeal, they will sell and move.
Than the justice system will get a chance to be lead in serving justice to the majority members of the condominium corporation that under these hard condition were forced to keep quite.
PART III
THE RESPONDENT’S ISSUES AND LAW
A. Does the Appellant has exercised the powers and discharged the duties with honestly and good faith as require by Section 24.(1) of the Condominium Act?
40. This issue is governed by the provision of Section 24.(1) of the Condominium Act:
24(1) Every director and officer of a corporation shall exercise the power and discharge the duties of his or her office HONESTLY and in GOOD FAITH.
Section 4 of the Declaration, at Management Agreement, has clearly instructed that:
5.3 The Manager shall promptly deal with all reasonable inquiries, requests, and complaints of the Board or any ….. 5.4 Complaints relating to the common elements, the maintenance and repair of which are the responsibility of the corporation, shall be attended by the Manager in as prompt and diligent a manner as possible.
41. It is submitted that before appointment of Vero, from April 1991, to January 1994, four Property Managers had full knowledge of the Respondent’s complaints. In the absent of transcript of evidence an,,,,[for further information see Frauds and Conspiracy in Condo 935]
No comments:
Post a Comment