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.

This 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 one unit.

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 suitable.

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.


top  contents  chapter  previous  next