Court injunction successful in stopping a termination meeting
17 & 19 Yorkville Avenue
Yorkville Partners was incorporated on June 10, 2015 to purchase and
redevelop several adjacent properties on Yorkville Avenue, including 17
Yorkville. They intend to build a mixed-use development comprised of a
63 story residential tower above a three-storey commercial podium.
is a major undertaking, with an anticipated budget in excess of $100
million. Yorkville Partners has already spent more than $50 million to
acquire the land that will be required to complete the project.
Yorkville Partners bought 19 Yorkville Avenue and it has agreed to pay
$19.5 million for that property. The
purchase agreement is firm.
Yorkville Partners began approaching the owners of units at 17
Yorkville in the fall of 2014 and paid the unit owners a
significant premium for their units. Yorkville Partners was able to buy
five of the six units.
Yorkville Partners owns 83.33% of the units making up
TSCC No 1744 at 17 Yorkville Avenue in Toronto. There are two
residential units and four commercial units. The only hold out, Romijay Enterprises owns
Yorkville Partners would not have agreed to
purchase 19 Yorkville Avenue if it could not buy all the 17 Yorkville units using section 124 of the Condo Act.
By February 2017 it was clear that Yorkville Partners and Romijay had
reached an impasse. On February 22, 2017, Yorkville Partners made the offer
to purchase TSCC No 1744 for $24,968,789. Since they
owned more than 80% of the units, Yorkville Partners believed that it would be
able to approve the sale in accordance with section 124 of the Act.
The Condo Act provides that dissenting unit holders
have the right to challenge the sale price and receive monetary
compensation if it is found to be insufficient.
A meeting of unit owners was scheduled to be held on April 18, 2017 to
consider an offer to buy the condo corporation and to vote on whether
the offer should be approved.
Romijay opposed the termination of the corporation and in a court
application relies upon the oppression remedy in section 135 of the Act.
Soul 7 at 17 Yorkville Avenue
His tenant, Mr. Berman, the owner of Soul 7, claims strong emotional
ties to his rented unit and further claims that no nearby location would be
The owner & tenant went to court seeking a prohibitory injunction
that would restrain the holding of a meeting of unit owners to consider
the offer until the sale has been finally decided on a motion for
summary judgment or at a trial.
They were successful in getting a motion for an interlocutory
injunction restraining the meeting from being held until the action is
finally adjudicated or until other court order.