Ontario court rules against man who sought damages for use of his name that he allegedly trademarked

The Ontario Superior Court has granted an association that owned and operated a trailer park all the orders it requested upon determining that the respondent’s conduct was flagrant, improper, unjustified, and repeated despite warnings and second chances. 

In Gail Park Cottagers’ Association v. Wright, 2025 ONSC 4246, the respondent was a member of the association and a leaseholder of a lot, dubbed Lot 1, located in the trailer park. 

The association applied to regain control of its bank accounts and funds, correct changes to its corporate records, prevent the respondent from making further changes, remove him from the park, and receive compensation for damages due to his alleged ongoing misconduct. 

The association alleged that the respondent: 

• unilaterally amended the association's Ontario business registry filings 
• tried to disrupt the association’s governance and operations 
• declared himself and non-association members as new directors 
• repeatedly violated the association’s by-laws 
• misappropriated the association’s funds 
• caused concern among the association’s members 
• interfered with members’ peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the park 
• refused to accept the association’s termination of his membership and lease 

The respondent countered that he was on the receiving end of bullying, harassment, and unfair treatment. He asserted that he could assume the park’s management because the association’s board of directors failed to update the business registry filings. 

Orders granted

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted all orders the association sought, including an order declaring that it owned and controlled its and the Gail Park Camper’s Association’s bank accounts. 

The court’s orders directed the respondent to remove his trailer from Lot 1 and refrain from visiting the park, trespassing on the association's property, and making any more edits to its Ontario business registry information or corporate records. 

The court’s orders also asked the respondent to pay the amounts of $406.80 to maintain Lot 1’s grass for the park season; $282.07 to replace another lot’s electrical breaker; and $48,223.93 as substantial indemnity costs for litigation expenses. 

The court noted that the association’s evidence also supported the following amounts: $73,889.07 in legal fees, including $13,557 in full indemnity costs for corporate counsel costs; and $43,997.82 for funds removed from its bank accounts. 

The court granted orders for the association’s constructive trust over any funds taken by the respondent, the termination of his lease and membership in the association, and a writ of possession for Lot 1 and his trailer. 

According to the court, without the court orders, the bank would not unfreeze the accounts, the business registry would not rectify amendments to the association’s corporate records, and the respondent would not leave the park. 

The court ruled that the respondent interfered with the association members’ peaceful and quiet enjoyment, in breach of the lease terms, the association’s by-laws, and a Nov. 26, 2010 settlement agreement allowing him to stay on Lot 1 as long as he respected the by-laws. 

The court found that the respondent: 

• sent the members a letter claiming that the association’s executive committee was “a branch from the main tap root of evil” 
• unsuccessfully brought a human rights application alleging that the association committed reprisals 
• began and later discontinued an Ontario Superior Court application asserting that the association breached his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a United Nations international covenant 
• served the board with notices and affidavits claiming that he trademarked his name and deserved damages since the board used his name in conversations 
• wrote multiple emails harassing the board and association members