Lau v. Bayview Landmark

Lau v. Bayview Landmark Final Notice

The action has been settled.

The settlement funds have been distributed to all of the purchasers except for eight (8) (out of 133 original purchasers).

If you are one of the 8 unit purchasers, the deadline to claim the portion of your pro-rata share of the deposit has been extended to October 31st, 2007. Thereafter, if no claim is made, your right to make a claim will be lost forever as the remaining money will be distributed to all Class Members who have come forward.

PDF IconFor Class Action information on LMK Lawyers, please download the pdf by clicking here:
Lau v. Bayview Landmark Final Notice

Lau v. Bayview Landmark Legal Notice

If you were the purchaser of a condominium unit in Bayview Landmark located at the corner of Bayview Avenue and Blackmore Avenue, Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada, please read this notice carefully.

The Lawsuit

The project was never built and the purchasers lost their deposits. A lawsuit was commenced in the Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all purchasers of condominium units in the project.

The Settlement

By Order of Mr. Justice Colin Campbell, dated January 8th, 2007, the settlement of the class proceeding was approved. The 133 members of the Class are entitled to share in the net proceeds of settlement. The settlement proceeds available for distribution are $2,097,600.00 (this is the net amount available after payment of all legal fees and expenses). Each class member is entitled to pro-rata share based on their individual deposits.

As a member of the Class, you are entitled to share in the settlement funds

Deadline to claim monies

Class members have until June 30, 2007 to claim their portion of the settlement proceeds, failing which they will lose forever their right to claim settlement proceeds.

To claim monies please contact class counsel, Messrs. Landy Marr LLP at the address listed below

This notice is dated January 15th, 2007.

PDF IconFor Class Action information on LMK Lawyers, please download the pdf by clicking here:
Lau v. Bayview Landmark Legal Notice

Lau v. Bayview Landmark Court Order

On reading the Affidavit of Keith M. Landy, and the Minutes of Settlement, filed, and on hearing submissions of counsel for the Plaintiffs and counsel for the Defendants, Henry Lam and Linda Lam acting and appearing in person, this court declaires that the Settlement set forth in the Minutes of Settlement attached hereto as Schedule A to this Order, is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the members of the Class.

PDF IconFor Class Action information on LMK Lawyers, please download the pdf by clicking here:
Lau v. Bayview Landmark Court Order

Lau v. Bayview Landmark Newsletter 1

On the 28th day of June, 2004, Mr. Justice Cullity agreed with the submissions of
counsel Samuel S. Marr and Richard P. Quance and ordered a change in counsel
with respect to the Class action. Roger Gosbee and Perry Borden are no longer
solicitors of record.

Plaintiffs’ counsels are now moving to push the action forward as rapidly as
possible. The following steps have now been scheduled:

1) Examinations for Discovery of a representative of Living Realty are scheduled for
September 27, 2004;
2) Examinations for Discovery of Jeffrey Beber are scheduled for October 4 and 5th, 2004

We shall continue to keep you advised of further developments. Further newsletters
will be available from time to time at www.landymarr.com

PDF IconFor Class Action information on LMK Lawyers, please download the pdf by clicking here:
Lau v. Bayview Landmark Newsletter 1

Lau v. Bayview Landmark Reasons

In November 1996, the plaintiffs L and K brought proceedings under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 to recover deposits they ando ther prospective purchasers had made under agreements to purchase units in a condominium development. B and G, who had an arrangement to apportion the work, were the solicitors of record for the representative plaintiffs.

PDF IconFor Class Action information on LMK Lawyers, please download the pdf by clicking here:
Lau v. Bayview Landmark Reasons