Condominium living embodies a delicate balance between individual rights and collective harmony, a balance often tested when residents exhibit extreme behavior which might be linked to mental health factors. While empathy and accommodation are vital, recent Ontario case law underscores a stark reality: when actions threaten communal safety, legal intervention is not just warranted but imperative. In recent decisions, the courts have consistently prioritized the welfare of the community, demonstrating that mental health, while a consideration, cannot shield individuals from accountability or justify harm and disruption.

In Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2931 v. Tsatskin (2024), the resident's conduct – spray-painting swastikas, filing baseless lawsuits, and relentless harassment – transcended the bounds of acceptable accommodation. Despite her mental health claims, the court ordered her to sell her unit, declaring her actions had "repudiated the cooperative foundation of condominium living." This ruling highlights a critical judicial stance: egregious behaviour, even when linked to mental health, forfeits the right to communal coexistence.

In MTCC No. 1025 v. Hui (2021), the court addressed the case of a tenant whose violent acts – including brandishing a knife at security guards, obstructing residents, and committing lewd acts in common areas – prompted police intervention. By the time the condominium corporation sought a court order, the tenant had already been arrested and barred from the premises by the police. Despite this, the court affirmed the corporation's right to pursue legal recourse, finding that the corporation acted appropriately in securing an order to formalize the tenant's removal and prevent future breaches, even after police intervention. While mental health struggles were an apparent underlying factor, the respondents did not raise them, and the court focused solely on the objective danger posed by the tenant's conduct.

Not all cases culminate in eviction or police involvement. Toronto Standard Condominium Corp. No. 2581 v. Paterno (2023) offers a nuanced exception. A resident grappling with substance abuse received a conditional order permitting him to stay if he attended treatment, paid costs, and adhered to the corporation's rules and documents. Despite his violent behaviour (among other things, he had ripped a phone from a security guard's hands and smashed it), the court acknowledged his efforts toward rehabilitation and refused to order that he sell his unit, illustrating that cooperation can mitigate penalties. However, this leniency is precarious. Mental health struggles deserve careful consideration, may create accommodation obligations and can mitigate penalties, but they do not erase the duty to comply with the law and the corporation's documents.

This is apparent in the MTCC 580 v. Mills (2021) cases, which reveal a darker facet of accommodation requests. Mr. Mills, a resident with severe disabilities, inundated the board with thousands of emails, blocked contractors, and terrorized neighbours with looping audio recordings. While the court recognized his disabilities, it condemned his demands – such as requiring neighbours to avoid his gaze – as oppressive. The judge rejected Mills' misuse of accommodations as a "sword" to control others, emphasizing that the duty to accommodate cannot override communal rights or excuse harassment. Ultimately, Mr. Mills was ordered to pay significant costs and stop his harassment. This precedent underscores that accommodations are designed to ensure equity, and are "not license to harass, oppress, or unilaterally dictate rules for how the condominium community behaves."

Despite how it may often feel, condominium managers are neither social workers nor mental healthcare providers. Their mandate is to uphold governing documents and ensure good governance, not to rehabilitate residents. When behaviour escalates into harassment or violence, courts will intervene as the ultimate arbiters.

In Tsatskin, a court order swiftly neutralized the threat. In Hui, the court affirmed the importance of compliance orders even after police intervention. In Paterno, the order imposed steep penalties to curb harmful conduct, yet rehabilitation kept him on site. In Mills, medical accommodation requests were ineffective as either a sword or a shield.

The cases above reveal a critical balance: courts prioritize community welfare while recognizing the need to address mental health sensitively. For condominium managers, navigating this balance requires both legal precision and compassionate pragmatism:

1.    Balance Sensitivity and Safety: Accommodations may reduce penalties but cannot excuse harm. Engage with residents empathetically but escalate legally if the behaviour threatens others.
2.    Document Rigorously: Track incidents, communications, and accommodation requests.
3.    Engage Counsel Early: Discuss matters with counsel to ensure compliance with human rights laws and to mitigate risks.
4.    Enforce Governing Documents: Focus on legal compliance. Court orders (e.g., compliance orders, injunctions) formalize accountability and deter future breaches.

Managing these situations can be extremely challenging. The stress and anxiety often go beyond the workday and bleed into a manager's personal life. While this is never easy, applying the steps discussed above can help you navigate toward a safe and effective resolution.

Patrick Greco is a partner in the Condominium Law Group at Shibley Righton LLP where he provides a full range of condominium solicitor and advocacy services and particularly enjoys attending and chairing diffi cult owners’ meetings and assisting with complex construction matters. Patrick sits on the Board of Direc tors of the CCI-Golden Horseshoe Chapter, the CCI-Toronto Education Committee, and enjoys teaching and presenting to industry groups. In his free time, Patrick can be found work ing on his hobbies, which include his garden, hot yoga, travelling strange places, and recently completing his culinary arts certificate from George Brown College.

Patrick Nelson is an associate in the Condominium Law Group at Shibley Righton LLP. He advises cli ents on complex compliance matters, amending and interpreting govern ing documents, and preparing various agreements related to condominium operations. Patrick has appeared be fore the Condominium Authority Tri bunal, the Superior Court of Ontario, and the Court of Appeal. www.shibleyrighton.com 

View PDF View Flipbook Back to Latest Issue