26/27/2023 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 83 published on 01/09/2023
Court issues strong compliance order as a result of the owner’s misconduct due to substance abuse. However, Court declines to order immediate sale of unit.
The respondent owner had seriously misbehaved. The Court summarized as follows:
As I shall explain further below, Mr. Paterno has lived at the condominium since 2016 without incident until 2021 when his unacceptable misbehaviour began. He, however, has a serious long-standing substance abuse illness and beginning in 2021 he lapsed in managing his problem. While under the influence of alcohol or drugs, he breached his responsibilities to the employees of the condominium corporation and his communal responsibilities to his fellow residents of the condominium. For some of his misdeeds, he has been punished in criminal proceedings. He is remorseful for his wrongdoing. He has made efforts to seek assistance for his alcoholism and substance abuse problems. He wishes to remain a member of the condominium community. He promises not to repeat his bad behaviour.
However, recent events indicate that he has been only partially successful in rehabilitating himself and in becoming a responsible member of the community. TSCC 2581 was more than justified and indeed was statutorily obliged to enforce and to protect the rights of the residents of the condominium to not be disturbed by Mr. Paterno’s misbehaviour.
The Court decided not to order immediate sale of the owner’s unit. Instead, the Court made several orders against the Respondent, including orders to pay costs and damages to the condominium corporation, as well as various orders restricting the owner’s actions and activities. The Court’s order also included specific authorization for the condominium corporation to bring a motion for a further order directing a sale of the owner’s unit upon proof of a violation by the owner (of the Court’s order).
York Condominium Corporation No. 444 v. Ryan (Condominium Authority Tribunal) June 16, 2023
Owner’s complaints respecting a neighboring smoker constituted harassment and were an unreasonable noise and nuisance that contravened Section 117 (2) of the Condominium Act as well as the condominium corporation’s governing documents
The Tribunal found that the owner’s complaints respecting a neighboring smoker were not reasonably expressed. The Tribunal said:
Ms. Ryan has consistently and for an extended period, harassed Ms. Powell and her children and the management and staff of YCC 444. In the course of this, her conduct constituted a nuisance, annoyance or disruption. While I believe that Ms. Ryan genuinely feels threatened by the smoke and odour she alleges is coming from Ms. Powell’s unit, she has chosen a completely inappropriate course of action to deal with it.
The Tribunal held that the owner’s behaviour violated numerous provisions in the condominium corporation’s governing documents which were intended to prevent unreasonable nuisances or disturbances, and accordingly fell within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to deal with such violations. The Tribunal said:
I conclude that harassment can include conduct that is a nuisance, annoyance or
disruption. While harassment is not a prescribed and prohibited activity under
subsection 117 (2), harassing conduct may be prohibited in the governing
documents of a condominium. Depending on the wording of the provision and the
actual conduct in issue, the conduct may fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ordered the owner “to cease and desist in that conduct which I have
found to be a nuisance, annoyance or disruption, specifically, the nuisance of
noise under subsection 117 (2), the verbal and written abuse to which she has
subjected Ms. Powell, her children and the management of YCC 444, in particular
the condominium manager and the on-site supervisor, the posting of abusive and
insulting notices on Ms. Powell’s door and on a common element bulletin board of
YCC 444 and the hanging of sheets over her front door and posting notices on the
sheet or front door.”
Toronto Standard Condominium Corp. No. 2581 v. Paterno, 2023 ONSC 4343