YCC #42—back in the courts

In the afternoon of Thursday 09 January 2014, Amina Gure, Sandeep Gosal, Mark Cianfarani, Vince Cianfarani and Vista Property Management Inc. were notified that they were required to attend Motions Scheduling Court Friday morning where an application date will be set.

Derrick Fulton, representing YCC # 42 was suing the above named parties and was asking the court to:
1.
Uphold Campbell's decision to decertify AGM's election results.
2.
An order to allow the corporation to reconvene the AGM to hold a new election to elect two directors.
3.
An injunction preventing Amina and Sandeep from acting as directors until the AGM has been held.
4.
An injunction demanding that management follow the three remaining director's instructions.
5.
Damages of $75,000.
6.
If necessary an order making the original five directors parties to this application.
7.
Respondents pay the costs of the application on a substantial costs basis.

Grounds for the application
Fulton claims that he represents the old board, which is the true board since Michael Campbell decertified the election results on 29 November and that Amina and Sandeep are ignoring the chair's decision. Other claims include:
YCC 42 has been properly governed by a Board of Directors up to the AGM. The Board have been instrumental in taking YCC 42 from a negative financial position to a positive financial position of approximately
$2 million in a relatively short period of time of approximately one year.

Sandeep, Amina and the property manager are creating a situation of confusion as to who are the Directors of YCC 42
the respondents were interfering with the corporation's account with BMO and the applicants are concerned that Amina and Sandeep would spend the corporation's assets.
Sandeep and Amina have caused the property manager, Mary Kahn
to be forced out and Vista Property Management be appointed as the Property Manager of YCC 42.
Contestants at the elections, Ataul Malick and Mohammed
Nizamuddin are claiming that they are the winning candidates for the two director positions and as such they should be on the Board of Directors despite the finding of fraud by the Chairman.

HOA meeting
That Thursday evening, the Home Owners Association had a meeting where Sandeep, Safdar and Amina updated the approximately 32 owners in attendance on the crisis that was created by the split in the board.

There has been no security officers on the property since the start of the year because Mark could not be sure they would be paid. The terminated security company was not paid for the services it provided in November or December.

Motions Court—Jan 10
At the hearing, Derrick Fulton and the counsel for respondents, which included counsel for the condo corporation (the new board), agreed to return in a week to set a date for the application.

Board meeting
Khan and Karim boycotted a board meeting called by the other three directors on 15 January 2014 to discuss the crisis and to pass a motion to hire a law firm to represent the "new board" at Friday's hearing at Motions Court.

On Monday 13 January 2014, Mark brought security back to YCC #42. The question becomes when will they get paid?

Motions Court—Jan 17
At this hearing, the judge has two applications. The original one from YCC #42 submitted by Derrik Fulton naming the two new directors and Vista Property management as respondents while Carl Dirks from Fogler, Rubinoff LLP submitted an application from YCC #42 naming Shah Jahan Khan and Anver Karim as respondents.

Derrick Fulton's basic argument is that Mr. Campbell decertified the election results due to massive election fraud and therefore Amina and Sandeep are not directors and therefore they did not have the power to replace the property management company and corporate lawyers. He was seeking direction on the results of elections held at the September AGM.

Carol Dirks countered by saying that if Mr. Campbell had issues with his decision on the election results he should have go to the courts for direction.

She told the judge that two of the directors refused to sign cheques and no costs were being paid and the bank is closing the account. When the board tried to open a new account, Karim and Khan went to the RBC and told them not to open an account.

Fulton stated that this was the first he heard that the two were refusing to
sign cheques.

Decision
The judge set a court date of 17 March 2014 to hear both applications. In the meantime, the new board will not enter into any new contracts and all five directors would sign the cheques.


top  contents  chapter  previous  next