10/01/2023 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 81 published on 01/03/2023
Court finds oppression in relation to handling of election. Court orders condominium corporation to pay nominal damages to the Applicants.
The Applicants, residents in the condominium, claimed that the condominium corporation’s handling of an election (in which the Applicants were candidates) was oppressive. They claimed resulting damages.
The Court agreed that the handling of the election was, in some respects, oppressive. The Court said:
Relative to the oppression claim, in summary, I find that the way in which 1737, through (the property manager), handled the applicants’ proxies on the day of the election, and the way in which (the Chair of the election) questioned the applicants about the required disclosure item regarding litigation, were unfairly prejudicial to, and/or unfairly disregarded the interests of the applicants, amounting to a breach of s. 135 of the Act. While there are other aspects of the respondents’ conduct, including in particular the collection and counting of votes, that was suboptimal and concerning, I do not find that it rises to the level necessary to engage relief under s. 135 of the Act. In that regard, my findings above of conduct that does breach s. 135 are limited to 1737. I do not find breaches by the individual respondents.
The Court awarded the Applicants “nominal damages” of $5000. The Court said:
What the applicants have suffered, in particular, is the loss of potential opportunity to serve as volunteers on the Corporation’s Board. While such service is admirable and to be encouraged, and while the applicants like most people contesting for positions on a board presumably sought the opportunity based on an altruistic desire to make the operation of the Board and the Corporation better, it is hard to identify quantifiable damages arising relative to that lost opportunity.
Similarly, while clearly the applicants have been frustrated and have arguably suffered
some amount of public embarrassment and humiliation as a result of the events at issue, it is my view that they have also overreacted to some extent to perceived misconduct on the part of the respondents.Gangoo and Giuntoli v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1737, 2023 ONSC 260