22/07/2021 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 76 published on 01/12/2021
Court grants interlocutory injunction to restrain harassment and oppression
TSCC 2519 brought an application against one of the owners (Emerald) and against certain affiliates of the owner and/or occupants of Emerald’s units. TSCC 2519 alleged that the conduct of the Respondents constituted oppression, workplace harassment and/or violations of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the condominium’s Declaration. TSCC 2519 also applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain this alleged misconduct pending the hearing of the main application.
The Court found that the actions of certain Respondents constituted workplace harassment (under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act) and oppression, and also violated Section 117 of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation’s Declaration. The Court granted the requested interlocutory injunction. The Court’s decision includes the following:
- The problem is the hurtful and unrelenting manner in which the responding parties have made and pursued their various requests and demands, and the apparent use of the threat of litigation to intimidate board members and unit owners.
- The evidence proves, on a balance of probabilities, that Thomson and Eroltu, on behalf of Emerald, have engaged in a pattern of conduct that is intimidating, bullying, and ultimately abusive, which has thwarted the ability of the board of directors to govern as they were elected to do. Again, the substance of their persistent complaints, demands, and requests for records may all be legitimate but the manner in which they are advocating for Emerald’s rights as a unit owner is not acceptable and contrary to Emerald’s obligations under 117of the Act and s. 33 of the Declaration.
- In addition, the persistent pattern of hostile and aggressive email communications by Eroltu and Thomson, together with the various incidents of physical intimidation in the form of Eroltu and Thomson’s raised voices, and their sometimes close physical proximity with Chen and Ferraro in closed environments (Eroltu’s unit and the elevator), which reasonably gave rise to an apprehension of fear, is conduct that causes injury with a psychological harm that is beyond a trifling nature, such that an interlocutory compliance order is warranted.
- The verbal abuse, door banging, physical intimidation, accusations of wrongdoing, shouting, and micromanaging of Ferraro (without authority) by Thomson and Eroltu constitute workplace harassment within the meaning of the OHSA. The conduct ought to have been known by them to be unwelcome to Ferraro. The letter from Shibley Righton LLP dated June 15, 2020 made this explicit.
The Court also granted an interlocutory order prohibiting certain Respondents from soliciting proxies from unit owners for owners’ meetings. On this issue, the Court said:
TSCC 2519 also seeks an interlocutory order restraining the responding parties from soliciting proxies of unit owners for calling special owners’ meetings. Based on the evidence, I find that this would be fair and equitable. There is compelling evidence before the court that the responding parties (with the exception of Campione) likely have exerted undue influence and/or engaged in less than transparent methods, to secure proxies from unit owners to procure a special owners’ meeting in the recent past.