The Plaintiff, Sali Elbaum, is a unit owner of the Defendant, York Condominium Corporation No. 67. In 2012, while she was walking on the common elements of the condominium, she was seriously injured when an unleashed dog, owned by the Defendants Nathalia Gauto and Miqueias de Oliveira Silva, other residents of the condominium, allegedly attacked her causing her to fall.
This is a motion by the Plaintiff for summary judgement in accordance with the Statement of Claim. The Plaintiff claims a liquidated debt plus accruing factoring fees of 0.1 per cent per day. The original amount outstanding was $58,057.20. At the time the claim was issued in 2014, the amount of damages claimed, with accrued fees, was $219,070.92. As at September 15, 2015, the outstanding amount claimed was $253,549.08.
This is a motion to continue a Mareva injunction. A request to amend the style of cause was unopposed and this request should be granted. The Plaintiff, O2 Electronics Inc., which alleges that it was the victim of a fraud perpetrated by the Defendant, Alex Sualim, obtained a Mareva injunction by Order of Justice Chapnik dated July 11, 2014, which Order was extended by the Orders of Justice Goldstein dated July 21, 2014 and Justice Himel dated July 31, 2014.
In condominium living, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. However, the power of the collective is not absolute. Power must be exercised within the bounds of the condominium’s established jurisdiction and with due respect to the legal rights and reasonable expectations of the few or the one. As with most efforts to balance competing rights, the fact that people are involved complicates matters. It is well understood that in complicated moments people sometimes see exactly what they wish to see. Moreover, some find other’s illogic and foolish emotions an irritant.
The plaintiff having noted the defendant in default moves under Rule 19.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”) for judgment. The primary relief sought by the plaintiff before this court was an injunction “restraining the defendant from engaging in or being employed by another employer engaged in a medical spa or weight loss centre business within a twenty mile radius of any medical spa or weight loss centre owned and operated by the plaintiff, for two years commencing October 12, 2012, terminating on October 11, 2014.” (my emphasis) Further injunctive relief was also sought in relation to allegations that the defendant had breached her employment contract with the plaintiff by entering into a contract of employment with Renew Medical Spa (“Renew”) at a location within nine miles of where the defendant had worked with the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is a Condominium Corporation and the Defendant was the Property Management Inc. for the said Condominium Corporation and Ms. Layne was the Property Manager for the Condominium Corporation and Defendant. The defendants were terminated by the Plaintiff on September 2, 2011. The Defendant, Ms. Layne is the owner of the Corporate Defendant (KSM). The Plaintiff has made numerous requests to the Defendants to turn over to the Plaintiff the records and documents rightfully belonging to the Corporate Plaintiff. The Defendants have refused. The Question is: Do the Defendants have any lawful right to withhold the Property of the Plaintiff? The short answer is “No”. The Management Agreement between the parties specifically provides that the Condo’s property will be returned to the Condo Corp. upon termination of the Property Management Corp. Having heard argument from both sides, an order shall go pursuant to paragraph 1 (a) + (b) of the Notice of Motion of the Plaintiff dated September 28, 2011.
