Tuesday, June 19, 2001

Case Studies, Pendrell Place: Litigation - Appointment of an Administrator

The following transcript records the decision by the Court to order the appointment of an Administrator for Pendrell Place. This process was originally initiated by Mr. Oldaker on December 28, 2000 when, as per paragraph 57 of his October 3, 2005 Affidavit, he filed Petition L003498 in the Supreme Court.
However, the transcript of June 19, 2001 leaves the impression that it was a group of owners other than Mr. Oldaker who is applying for the appointment of the administrator:
MR. WILLIAMS: And My Lord, this is a petition asking for a number of different remedies and declarations, but for the purposes of being before Your Lordship, the ten owners and a number of owners within the Strata Corporation, as well as direction from the owners to the Council last night wish the appointment of an administrator

As Mr. Oldaker's October 3, 2005 Affidavit indicates (paragraphs 16 through 56) he had experienced nothing but opposition from other owners in trying to have the issues with his suite addressed, hence his desire to have an Administrator appointed, as expressed in his December 28, 2000 petition.

19JUN2001 L003498 Oldaker v Strata Plan.doc

The process of appointing an administrator, as started by Mr. Oldaker in December of 2000 and so ordered by the Court on June 19, 2001, took an interesting turn on August 8, 2001. At that time, Mr. Patrick Williams filed a new petition (L012185) on behalf of Gregory Ball, Daphne Bramham, Max Campos, Barbara Coleman, George Fetherling, Ilpo Halva, Beverly Lewis, Martin Lewis and Gordon Owens. Despite being a new petition, this action did not seek anything other than the appointment of an administrator, which had already been ordered by the Court on June 19, 2001. Both Mr. Williams and Mr. (Richard) Hamilton were still trying to settle that order and agree on who the administrator should be and what the terms of reference would be:

MR. HAMILTON: Suffice to say again, that we have been working, Mr. Williams and I, trying to come to terms with what the order should say.
THE COURT: So you haven't settled the order?
MR. HAMILTON:We haven't settled the order.
MR.HAMILTON: Now, instead of going back in that proceeding, as I submit he ought to have, he has started a brand new proceeding seeking the same order that you've already made, the appointment of an administrator.The petition herein that I received by fax in part yesterday afternoon and is before the Court today, asks for exactly what we agreed to and Your Lordship ordered on June the 19th, the appointment under the Act of an administrator. And I say that it's inappropriate, the matter -- for him to seek today on his new petition, his clients' new petition, the appointment of an administrator.

It appears as if the group of owners named in the new petition were attempting to hijack the appointment of an administrator for Pendrell Place. If the petitioners had been successful they would have, in effect, been in control of deciding the name of and the terms of reference for the administrator, as so noted by Mr. Richard Hamilton:

MR. HAMILTON: ...this is a completely, in my submission, inappropriate back door way of trying to get, on behalf of these individual vested interests, these owners, their choice of the administrator.

The Court agreed with Mr. Hamilton's submission and questioned Mr. Williams throughout the hearing as to the purpose and appropriateness of the new petition:

MR. WILLIAMS: So when I sent the order over to my friend indicating Garth Cambrey, one of the two, the response was, oh, I have received my -- I've received different instructions, my clients aren't prepared to accept either one of the administrators. So I was in the unfortunate situation where as far as I was concerned before Your Lordship, the idea was one of the two named administrators in the Gordon Owens' affidavit --

THE COURT: I understand that, but why didn't you come back in that action, either to settle the order or to ask the Court to make an ancillary order appointing a particular person as administrator? Why did you start a new action --

MR. WILLIAMS: Because --

THE COURT: -- and apparently seek to come here ex parte?

MR. WILLIAMS: The main reason -- well, a couple of reasons, My Lord. Number one is the urgency of the matter. Number two is the fact there was actually a small claims hearing this morning at 10:45. But most importantly, this Strata Corporation is in such a mess that I was -- it was my belief that what I will call a clean petition would be best for a Court to deal with.

THE COURT: But you're asking the Court to make an order it's already made and you're not giving notice to the interested party to whom you would have had to give notice if you'd acted in the other action.

It was Mr. Oldaker's position in his petition of December 2000 that an administrator was required for Pendrell Place precisely because the Strata Corporation was in such a mess. Mr. Williams was essentially presenting the very same argument and reasons in the August 8, 2001 petition for the necessity of an Administrator that had already been covered by Mr. Oldaker in his December 2000 petition and dealt with in the June 19, 2001 hearing.

The Court dismissed Mr. Williams' petition, calling the action "vexatious" and "inappropriate". The full transcript may be accessed as follows:

8AUG2001 L01285 Ball et al v Owners.doc

It was on October 26, 2001 that an administrator was finally named (Mr. Garth Cambrey) and the terms of reference agreed upon. The full transcript of that decision may be accessed as follows:

260CT2001 L003498 STROMBERG-STEIN Oldaker v The Owners.doc

This post contains a brief discussion of Mr. Cambrey's time as administrator for Pendrell Place, as well as providing examples of other strata complexes as they went through the process of having an administrator appointed.