Part 24 published on 01/11/08
Owner restrained due to owner’s harassment of management staff and a member of the Board
The owner, Lahrkamp, opposed the Board’s decision to renovate the lobby in order to accommodate access for disabled persons, the elderly and people with packages or bulky items. The owner’s objection developed into a series of demands for documentation and information, complaints about the resulting responses, and confrontations with the management and administration of the condominium.
After reviewing the evidence, the Court’s conclusions were as follows:
“The evidence does not establish that it is necessary to order a broad injunction against the respondent. The respondent is entitled to express his opinion about the Board of Directors and the lobby renovation. There is no basis to order the dismantling of the respondent’s website. However, in my view, the respondent’s conduct to the staff of the management office and to a member of the Board of Directors amounts to harassment. The Condominium Act gives the respondent the right to examine the records of the corporation. He is not entitled to abuse that right by conducting a campaign by siege against the management office and directors. Banging on the management door on several occasions, blocking the door where the staff person was working and positioning his car to impede a director from proceeding are examples of conduct which are harassing. There are a number of remedies available to the respondent under the Condominium Act including calling a meeting of owners, removing directors and suing for oppression. Harassment is not one of them. When the respondent has been asked to desist by counsel, he has not done so. He has made it clear that short of a court order he will not stop his harassment. A staff person or director should not have to feel intimidated and harassed by the respondent.”
The Court accordingly ordered that Mr. Lahrkamp be restrained from communicating with any employee of the management office or member of the Board of Directors, other than in writing. He was also restrained from entering or coming within 25 feet of the management office. And he was required to make any request for records in writing. He was also ordered not to persist in making more than one request with respect to the same record. In addition, documents would be produced to him only after he had paid the photocopying charges in advance.