The Problem

Have you been the victim, or known someone who has been, of abusive legal letters as described at http://www.condoinformation.ca/feedback/legal-letters-and-liens? If so, do you feel you are powerless to fight against this coercive practice with malicious intent? It is no surprise if you feel so, because you will be forced to pay eventually otherwise they can force the sale of your condo without going to the court first after registering a lien against you. And it is impractical and uneconomical to bring it to the court individually afterwards.

The Solution

I have just been such a victim myself. And I decided to do something about it. We can seek remedies collectively by bringing a class action against one of the bigger condominium service companies (the “Company”) and one of the prominent law firms in the industry (the “Firm”). If we can get a favourable ruling, it will provide remedy for all the harms in the past, outlaw this unlawful tactic once for all, and send a strong message to everyone else in the condominium industry that the court will not hesitate to punish those bullying and coercive behaviours.

In the class action, I will be the representative plaintiff (others are very welcome to join in) to represent everyone who has been the victim of those abusive legal letters from their condo boards assisted by the Company or the Firm. To be cautious, we cannot reveal their names until we start the class action officially. To find out whether you will be a member in the class action, please email me at howard.zhuang@gmail.com with a copy of the legal letter your received. If you don’t have the copy any more, please provide as much details as possible, including the names of your condo, the service company and the law firm.

The Question

This class action lawsuit will essentially ask the court a Question of Law,

1. It is unlawful for a condominium in Ontario to apply its declaration, bylaws, rules or any agreements it involves in, regarding items that can be added to common expenses for a unit under certain circumstances, outside the boundary set by the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19 (the “Act”), pursuant to the superiority of the Act enshrined in s. 7 (5), s 56 (8), s 58 (4), s. 106 and s. 176 of the Act.
2. And subsequently, it is an offence, malpractice, and/or unjust enrichment for a (legal or non-legal) professional in the condominium industry to knowingly provide misleading statements and support these applications, under s. 133 (1) of the Act.

The same question in plain English has been post at http://asoneer.com/p/5d6. Please share your thoughts as well as your stories over there. And we will use the result to strengthen our case in the court.

As you may agree with me, any judge will rule this favourably because it should be so morally and legally. but unfortunately it has been obscured gradually by “creative” mischief in practice. Many judges have indirectly supported our argument in many previous cases. Our case is to ask the court to go a step further and set the record straight by a direct ruling to the question.

Fund Usage

The fund raised here will be used to pay for the cost (about $8K to $15K) to apply for further funding from Class Proceedings Fund (CPF), http://www.lawfoundation.on.ca/class-proceedings-fund/.

I believe CPF will undoubtedly support our case because the case fits perfectly to its objectives set out in the Class Proceedings Act and the jurisprudence decided pursuant to the Act, i.e. “enhanced access to justice and judicial efficiency, and advances one or more public interest, often including the added benefits of behaviour modification and the establishment of new legal principles”.

Reward

Once we win a favourable ruling and/or settlement, we will ask the court to approve the refund of your contribution, plus a reward of no more than original amount.

P.S.

You may wonder if this class action is necessary when the new Condo Act is under the way. My answer is that it is still absolutely needed because this practice is essentially bypassing the law through unlawful interpretation, thus merely changing the law won’t help the situation at all.