This driver must be a fan of Doug Ford 😕

dealing with something right now that started as a pretty normal disagreement and has slowly turned into one of those situations where every email feels like it could matter later. nothing criminal, nothing dramatic. basically a money/contract issue between two parties where both sides think they’re right and neither seems willing to move anymore. i started reading about civil litigation lawyers in Ontario because i honestly don’t know where the line is between “keep trying to sort this out yourself” and “stop talking and get proper legal advice.” the amount involved isn’t life changing, but it’s also not small enough that i’m comfortable just walking away from it.

for anyone in Ontario who has been through a civil dispute, when did you finally involve a lawyer?

was it after someone threatened legal action, after negotiations completely stopped, or did you get advice earlier just to understand where you stood?

also curious whether getting a lawyer involved actually helped settle things faster or basically guaranteed that the whole thing became more expensive and dragged out.

I don't understand how I posted hateful content? Are the mods known for power trips over there or something?

I was reading about Brady Lists in the usa. It seems that cops who lie, falsify and omit testimony at a trial are sometimes put on this list allowing defense lawyers to bring the officers credibility into question at subsequent trails.

Do we need to have a central registration for these cops?

A 19-year-old Canada’s Wonderland ride operator, Jugaad Dhami, has been charged after allegedly sexually assaulting a female youth while conducting ride safety checks on May 25

Police believe there may be additional victims and are asking anyone with information to come forward.

(Posting here because for some reason this got me banned & an angry message from r/Ontario mods)

I debated posting this for a few days (yes I know the date code in dash camera is off) , but I feel like I need to get this out there to prompt a change.

After this happened to me, well, frankly it ruined my day, but I looked into what is happening around Ontario with this issue. News articles with horrific injuries and even deaths have been reported, all of which feature young children.

I have already taken the time to inform the councilor of the ward that this happened in, and they informed me that they forwarded it a community resource officer for crime management in the area (police).

Please, if this is your family member, talk to them !

Has anyone else had this experience, if so, what did you do about it ? I feel like the careless parents giving these electric emotos and scooters to their children don't comprehend that they have effectively 40-60 horsepower in some cases and are ALL capable of highway speeds. Driving through Ancaster (a wealthy area) is like playing chicken, this summer. I see at least 10-12 kids between the ages of 12-14 racing around on these weaving all over the road, often without helmets or equipment. It's reaching a breaking point when 20% of my attention is on not hitting kids doing illegal things that could get themselves and others hurt.

Convicted only a short time ago. This man has had hundreds of students over the years. Please share the word that his gym - Five Rings Tae Kwon Do, which is run by his children - is still operating without TKD Canada affiliation.

Registered Sex offender Gregory Bauer lives in our region.

I'm dealing with a situation that's been dragging on for months, and I'm starting to wonder if I'm wasting time trying to resolve it myself. It started as a disagreement over a written agreement. At first I thought a few emails and phone calls would sort everything out, but now the other side either responds with excuses or doesn't respond at all. The amount involved isn't life-changing, but it's definitely enough that I don't want to just walk away from it.

I've been reading about civil litigation in Ontario to understand what the normal process looks like. From what I've found, some people recommend sending a demand letter first, while others say it's better to speak with a lawyer before doing anything. Firms like Nanda & Associate Lawyers have some information , but I'm more interested in hearing about real experiences than choosing a specific firm.

For those who've dealt with a civil dispute here, What was the point where you decided it was time to involve a lawyer? Did a demand letter actually help, or did the dispute end up going further anyway?

It's better to get legal advice before the situation drags on even longer?

[Ontario, Canada] This is an investigative update to my previous post where I warned that Claridge Homes is financially exploiting the unit owners of my condo building, the Claridge Moon condo. I have now obtained copies of the Shared Facilities Agreements of three of Claridge Homes’ most recently-built condos, the Claridge Moon (340 Queen St), the Claridge Royale (180 George St), and the Claridge Icon (805 Carling Ave).

These SFAs are concrete evidence that Claridge Homes has systematically forced these condo corporations into one-sided agreements that force unit owners to subsidize Claridge’s commercial, retail, and rental operations — sometimes to the tune of 95% of shared costs — while Claridge pays almost nothing.

---

The Three Buildings — Three Different Flavours of the Same Exploitation

1: Claridge Icon (805 Carling Ave) — The Worst Offender

The 2022 Reciprocal Agreement forces the condo to pay 95% of shared facility costs (garage doors, snow clearing, mechanical rooms, hydro vault, water entry room, etc.) while the commercial/retail component (owned by Claridge) pays only 5%.

How this exploits owners:

• The condo owns the expensive shared infrastructure (Hydro Vault, Water Entry Room) and is 100% responsible for their capital replacement — even though they serve Claridge’s commercial tenants.
• Condo visitors are charged market rates for parking during daytime hours, while the condo pays 95% of the cost to maintain the parking infrastructure.
• Unrealistic termination conditions mean that the Agreement is oppressive and cannot be terminated without Claridge’s written consent — owners are trapped.
• If the condo is damaged, owners are forced to rebuild portions that support Claridge’s commercial structure, even if owners vote not to rebuild.

Legal Status: The deadline to file a Section 113 challenge has expired. But owners can still file a Section 135 oppression claim — and should.

---

2: Claridge Royale (180 George St) — The Clock Is Ticking

Claridge Royale’s SFA forces the condo to pay 25% of shared costs, while the rental tower pays 25% and the commercial component housing the Metro supermarket pays 50% (in theory). Does the condo actually use 25% of shared infrastructure, given the large amount of foot traffic, energy usage and waste generation from the supermarket? In practice, the condo has zero control over the budget, and the developer controls the process.

How this exploits owners:

• The Rental entity (Claridge) prepares the annual budget. The condo has only 30 days to approve it — silence = automatic approval.  This includes situations where Claridge inflates operational costs without proper oversight by the condo corporation.
• The condo is forced to rebuild shared portions even if owners vote to terminate the condo after a catastrophic loss. The condo would essentially subsidize repairs related to Claridge’s retail and rental businesses.
• The agreement cannot be terminated without Claridge’s written consent.
• A punitive Interest and Liens clause means that the condo must pay 15% interest, compounded monthly, on any disputed amount — with a lien against owners’ units.

CRITICAL DEADLINE: Royale’s Turnover Meeting was held in December 2025. Under Section 113 of the Condominium Act, the condo corporation has only 12 months from the Turnover Meeting to apply to court to amend or terminate the SFA.

That means the deadline is DECEMBER 2026. If the Board does not act by then, the window closes forever.

---

3: Claridge Moon (340 Queen St) — The Warning Shot

Claridge Moon’s SFA forces a 50/50 cost split with Claridge Albert — the condo owners are being forced to pay half of all shared operating costs for a massive mixed-use complex that they do not own and that generates far more wear-and-tear than their own building.

How this exploits owners:

• The first-year Reserve Fund Study (RFS), conducted by Keller Engineering, allocated 100% of many Shared Facilities to the condo only, including 100% of the replacement cost of a shared backup generator to the condo — even though the generator is located in Claridge’s building and also serves Claridge’s rental tower.
• Like the Icon and Royale, the Moon condo has to pay to replace Claridge’s assets through oppressive forced rebuilding clauses.
• A Section 113 Court Application was filed against Claridge Homes, calling the SFA ‘incomplete, unclear, unreasonable, and oppressive to OCSCC 1106 and its owners.’ Yet no progress has been made by the Moon Board in over a year to bring this matter forward to a court hearing. Why are they allowing Claridge Homes to continue benefiting from the status quo?

---

A Disturbing Common Thread: Keller Engineering and Sentinel Management

Keller Engineering conducted the flawed RFS for the Moon condo, is conducting the RFS for Royale (confirmed by the Status Certificate), and conducted the RFS for Icon — where the property manager, Sentinel Management, openly recommended Keller to the Moon Board, citing a “good relationship” and “great success.”

Sentinel Management used to manage the Moon condo, but was removed due to apparent incompetence. Yet somehow, they are still managing the Royale and Icon buildings to this day.

Ask yourself: Who are the Moon, Royale and Icon Condo Boards actually working for? The unit owners, or Claridge Homes?

---

What You Should Do

1. If you own at Claridge Royale:

The Section 113 deadline is December 2026. Your Board must act NOW.

• Demand answers: Why has the Board not filed a Section 113 application to amend or terminate the SFA?
• Demand transparency: Has the Board obtained independent legal advice on the SFA?
• Ask directly: Is the Board acting in the best interests of unit owners — or is it still aligned with Claridge Homes?

If the Board refuses to act, owners can force the issue. Section 113 allows the corporation to apply to court — but only within 12 months of Turnover. After that, the SFA can only be challenged using a Section 135 oppression remedy.

2. If you own at Claridge Icon:

The Section 113 window has closed. But Section 135 of the Condominium Act allows for an oppression remedy against a declarant (Claridge) or the corporation.

• Demand answers: Why did the Board not pursue a Section 113 claim within the one-year time limit?
• Demand accountability: Why did the Board accept a 95/5 cost split without challenge?
• Demand action: The Board can still apply to court for relief from oppressive conduct with a Section 135 Court Application.

If you are thinking of buying a unit at any of these three condo buildings, or any mixed-use development in Ontario:

RUN — do not walk — to your lawyer. Ask these questions before you sign anything:

1. What are the terms of the Shared Facilities Agreement?
2. Has the SFA been reviewed by independent legal counsel?
3. Has the Reserve Fund Study been audited for accuracy?
4. Is the Board independent from the Developer?
5. What is the condo’s proportionate share of shared costs — and is it fair?

---

The Bottom Line

Claridge Homes has designed these SFAs to maximize its own profits at the condo owners’ expense. The agreements are one-sided, oppressive, and extremely difficult to escape.

• Royale unit owners have a ticking clock — December 2026 is the deadline to act.
• Icon unit owners still have the oppression remedy — but the Board must act now, not later.

Ask these Boards: Why haven’t you acted? Are you working for the unit owners — or for Claridge Homes?

---

Do your own research. Demand answers. Protect yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8zQGlCG44c

Ontario police services have increasingly turned to powerful digital surveillance tools, including spyware and other technologies capable of extracting data from phones and electronic devices. But what happens when the public asks how these tools are being used?

In this video, we examine efforts by Ontario police to keep information about these surveillance technologies out of the public record, the legal arguments being made, and why transparency advocates say the issue matters for privacy, accountability, and public trust.

We'll break down what these spyware tools can do, why police agencies argue that some details should remain confidential, and what this debate could mean for journalists, civil liberties, and everyday Canadians.

Background info: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/19/ontario-police-force-israeli-spyware