Unit Owner Forced by Court to Sell Unit After Making Baseless Complaints

by: Victor Yee

Condominium managers, volunteer directors, and lawyers in the industry will be familiar with this type of saga: An owner moves into the building, starts engaging in abusive and harassing behaviour, and the condominium corporation is compelled to enforce against them. The unit owner then turns their sights onto the manager, Board members, and/or legal counsel who is tasked with carrying out the condominium’s statutory duty to enforce.

The unit owner files frivolous complaints against the targets of their ire to various regulatory bodies, such as the Condominium Authority of Ontario (CAO), the Condominium Management Regulatory Authority of Ontario (CMRAO), the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), or the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) – all of which are unfounded and are merely designed to make the targets’ lives more difficult. The unit owner also complains to local politicians, contacts the media, contacts the targets’ employers, harasses their spouses and families, and leaves a trail of social media detritus geared at besmirching the targets’ reputations online.

Most of the time, the targets of this unit owner’s vexatious campaign have to wait until the various regulatory bodies dismiss the complaints as meritless. Most of the time, the unit owner suffers little to no consequences for their harassment, because nobody wants to become the next target.

But a recent case from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has shown that a unit owner who engages in such a campaign can be compelled via court order to sell their unit, and pay tens of thousands of dollars to their victims.

Unit Owner Sprayed Swastikas on Doors

In Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2931 v. Tsatskin, 2024 ONSC 6392, the respondent unit owner moved into the building and started engaging in dangerous and harassing behaviour. She spray-painted swastikas on unit doors, and when confronted by a resident, she spray-painted the resident’s face and hands. She made offensive, racist, and anti-Semitic remarks to other owners, and called the resident who she spray-painted a Nazi. Her conduct was characterized by the Superior Court as “extreme”.

Despite this extreme behaviour, the Superior Court did not force the unit owner to sell her unit and move out. Instead, the Court issued an injunction to restrain the unit owner’s uncivil behaviour.

In the Superior Court, judges will often give a unit owner one final opportunity to correct their behaviour – if they fail to comply, only then will the Superior Court order the drastic remedy of a forced sale of the owner’s unit.

Baseless Regulatory Complaints to LSO and HRTO

After the Superior Court’s injunction, the unit owner enlisted her family members to harass and intimidate the people who provided evidence against her in the court proceeding, other unit owners in the building, and the condominium’s legal counsel. 

The unit owner filed two complaints to the LSO, one against the condominium’s lawyer and one against a unit owner who served as a witness in the court proceeding and who was a licensed lawyer herself – both complaints were dismissed by the LSO.

The unit owner’s mother and sister also filed a series of complaints to the HRTO, against two of the witnesses and their respective employers, and against the law firm retained by the condominium corporation (including another lawyer and a law clerk at the firm). The unit owner’s family alleged that the witnesses were racist against Jewish people, and that they had uttered remarks about Jewish people making the area look cheap. Although the HRTO Applications have not been publicly reported as dismissed yet, the allegations have been denied.

Consequently, the condominium corporation brought the matter back to the Superior Court, and asked the Court to enforce the injunction and order the forced sale of the unit this time. The condominium argued that these baseless complaints to the LSO and HRTO were retribution or revenge against the persons involved in the original court proceeding, and were in violation of the injunction’s prohibition against the unit owner “engaging in any improper, harassing, or intimidating conduct which is likely to injure any person or unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment by the other unit owners”.

In response, the unit owner argued that she is entitled to file regulatory complaints to the LSO or the HRTO – if those complaints are found to be meritless, then those regulatory bodies would merely dismiss them. The unit owner also argued that her family members were the ones who filed the complaints, not her – and since her family members were not subject to the original injunction, she was not in breach.

Court Orders Forced Sale of Unit Within 6 Months

The Superior Court found that the unit owner has demonstrated a refusal to be bound by a court injunction, and therefore, the drastic remedy of a forced sale was appropriate. The Court also held that even if the unit owner was suffering from a mental illness – which the Court found insufficient evidence of in this case – that does not prevent the Court from ordering that the unit be sold. The Court gave the unit owner 3 months to enter into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for her unit, with a closing date within 6 months. If the unit owner failed to comply with that timeline, then the condominium corporation could sell the unit for her, for 10% less than her listing price; and if no offer was accepted within 60 days, then the condominium could lower the price by another 10%.

The Superior Court also granted an injunction prohibiting the unit owner and her family members from harassing the legally-licensed unit owner who served as a witness, her husband, and her father.

Finally, the Superior Court awarded legal costs awards totaling $55,000 against the unit owner, payable within 30 days. If the portion of the costs awards in favour of the condominium were not paid by the unit owner, then the condominium could take payment of its cost award from the sale proceeds of her unit.

Key Takeaways

Harassment in condominiums is not only unlawful, but can also lead to serious consequences for the perpetrator. Harassment is a criminal offence than can be prosecuted by the police and the Crown, and a civil cause of action for a condominium corporation to pursue against a unit owner under the Condominium Act.

Although unit owners are entitled to file complaints to regulatory bodies where it is warranted, frivolous or unfounded complaints will be contextually assessed for whether such complaints were designed to intimidate or harass. If so, the unit owner could be compelled to sell their unit, and pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs to the targets of their harassment.