Multigenerational living occurs when two or more generations of a family live under the same roof. In a condominium context, this could mean: 
•    Parents and their adult children; 
•    Grandparents, parents, and children together; or 
•    Extended relatives such as aunts, uncles, or cousins. 

In many parts of Canada, multigenerational living is becoming more common due to: 
•    Rising housing costs; 
•    Cultural traditions valuing close family proximity; 
•    A need for caregiving for elderly or young family members; 
•    Desire for shared resources and mutual support; and 
•    The cost of elder care and the lack of resources. 

In addition, multigenerational living in a condominium can also mean that we are seeing a variety of generations coming together under one larger roof and creating a real cross-section of society. This can present operational considerations and risks that need to be managed. Furthermore, it is important to always remember that the Human Rights Code of Ontario creates a clear standard of performance to ensure that people are able to live with dignity and have disabilities considered and accommodated. This, together with the choice to age in place (see our article on Aging in Place), creates the opportunity for condominium communities to look at things through different lenses and make decisions that help enhance the quality of life in our condominium communities. Accordingly, governance tools should include a Human Rights Accommodation Policy that establishes a meaningful process for advancing accommodation requests efficiently and effectively. Recently, we have also been talking about the appropriateness of palliative care in a residential condominium. 

Some further and connected considerations include the types of mobility devices that can operate effectively and safely in condominium spaces, while still allowing full access to the common elements. As solutions in mobility evolve, condominiums must consider the use of new technologies. Another factor is managing the risks associated with lithium-ion batteries. For more on this topic, see our article on E-Bikes. 

Condominiums must also have effective and safe systems for managing information. This means ensuring that service providers have data organized confidentially and that their systems also protect data. 

In multigeneration care, we have discussed important considerations regarding Elder Abuse and its implications within the condominium context. Below is a brief summary of a recent case involving an elderly unit owner and her live-in daughter caregiver.  

Legal and Practical Considerations in Condominiums 
Multigenerational living in condominiums must comply with the Condominium Act, 1998 (Ontario), as well as the corporation’s governing documents, including the declaration, by-laws, and rules. Key considerations include:
 
Occupancy Limits
The Act itself does not set occupancy limits, but municipal by-laws and condominium declarations sometimes do. An occupancy by-law can be put in place to manage the extra costs associated with additional residents. However, overcrowding creates other risks that may not be effectively managed with extra fees.     

Use of Units
Units must be used strictly as private residences, not for commercial lodging. Overcrowding or frequent turnover (such as rotating relatives staying short-term) may constitute a breach of the declaration.   

Common Element Use
More residents can mean more strain on shared amenities like gyms, pools, and parking. Rules may require registration of all residents with management for safety and security.     

Noise and Nuisance
Larger households can generate more noise, which might result in complaints if not managed respectfully. Designating spaces for children to play can help create a more peaceful solution. 

Accessibility
Older residents may require modifications for mobility, potentially triggering the need for a Section 98 agreement if changes are made to common elements.     

Who is this Person and what Authority do they Have?
Maintaining a confidential registry of who holds powers of attorney for property and/or personal care. Tracking registered caregivers and their access to the property. This helps with “stranger danger” on site, as well. 

Balancing Human Rights
In multigeneration buildings, it is important to ensure that systemic discrimination is also not built into the system, such as pool hours that favour adults. 

Elder Abuse 
In the context of multigenerational living, it is essential to consider the dynamics unfolding between generations under one roof. The Board cannot afford to turn a blind eye. 

In a recent case, York Region Condominium Corporation No. 570 (“YRCC 570”) commenced an application under Section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19 (the “Act”) seeking an order for compliance, as well as prohibiting one of the Respondents, Malka Renee Edery (“Renee”) from occupying or visiting a Unit at YRCC 570 owned by her mother (the Respondent, Kathryn Edery), as a result of her dangerous conduct. 

The facts of the case were that Kathryn had purchased the Unit and lived there without issue since 2020 until July 2023, when her daughter, Renee, moved in with her. For some time, Kathryn has had Alzheimer's disease and was deemed by her physician incapable of managing her property and personal care. In July 2023, prior to Renee moving into the Unit, Kathryn appointed her other daughters, Esther Ohayon (“Esther”) and Joyce Kadoch (“Joyce”), as her powers of attorney for property and personal care. 

Almost immediately after Renee moved into the Unit, her presence resulted in a significant disruption to those around her. The Corporation alleged that Renee had engaged in a campaign of harassment and intimidation towards property management. Specifically, the Corporation adduced evidence that, on multiple occasions, Renee followed, photographed, and harassed YRCC 570's property manager, as well as made repeated, unfounded accusations of misconduct and elder abuse against her. Renee's actions towards staff and management were presented as a contravention of Section 117 of the Act and as conduct that created potential liability under Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act. 

The evidence also suggested elder abuse by Renee. Specifically, YRCC 570 adduced evidence that Renee had repeatedly been impersonating Kathryn in correspondence, that she had relegated Kathryn to the smaller bedroom (notwithstanding that this was Kathryn's home and she had previously used the main bedroom), that she had installed cameras throughout the Unit – including in Kathryn's bedroom, and that Kathryn was becoming increasingly isolated. 

To further complicate the proceedings, approximately two weeks before the hearing of the Application (which had already been adjourned on two occasions to allow Renee the opportunity to retain counsel and reply), Renee produced new powers of attorney (“POAs”) dated February 6, 2025, purporting to revoke the previous appointments of her sisters as substitute decision-makers for Kathryn. These documents were executed despite ongoing concerns and evidence relating to Kathryn’s capacity to validly execute these documents. 

In light of these developments and the surrounding concerns, a case conference was convened, and Justice Fraser directed that the application materials be served on the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (“OPGT”), recognizing the seriousness of the capacity issues and the risk of undue influence. However, the OPGT ultimately chose not to become involved, noting the many family members already involved to advance Kathryn’s interests. 

Ultimately, the Application hearing proceeded before Justice Fraser in March 2025. 

In considering whether the newly executed POAs should be recognized in the context of the Application, we argued, and the Court agreed, that the new POAs did not displace the original appointments of the other daughters as litigation guardians. Justice Fraser noted that no motion had been brought by Renee seeking to remove her sisters from that role, and concluded that Renee, due to her adverse interests to Kathryn, was not a suitable substitute to advance Kathryn's interests as Unit Owner in this dispute. 

To this end, while the Court was able to avoid making a definitive ruling on the overall validity of the new POAs, it still emphasized the importance of safeguards where capacity is in question. Justice Fraser also confirmed YRCC 570’s position that attorneys for property have the authority to act on behalf of the grantor to the same extent the grantor could if capable (except for making a will), including requiring Renee to vacate the Unit. 

In addressing whether Renee’s conduct constituted violations of the Act and YRCC 570’s governing documents, Justice Fraser affirmed that the evidentiary record before her amply demonstrated that Renee had engaged in harassing and other disturbing behaviour in contravention of the Act and the Declaration, By-Laws, and Rules governing YRCC 570, including a campaign of unfounded allegations against property management and the mistreatment and impersonation of Kathryn. 

Justice Fraser found that: i) Renee’s denials did not overcome the serious concerns raised by the evidence; ii) although the police had been called to the Unit without further action, this did not detract from the issues before the Court; and iii) Kathryn lacked the capacity to control or address Renee’s behaviour. The Court ultimately concluded that: 

“Many people have attempted to resolve this situation without resorting to Court. However, it has been without success. I conclude that YRCC 570 has demonstrated non-compliance, and that Kathryn and Renee are in breach of sections 116, 117 and 119 of the Act and the governing documents of YRCC 570. 

I do not fault Kathryn for the current situation. In my view, she does not have the ability to exert control over Renee. The remedy is for Renee to leave the Unit and for her to be prevented from visiting her mother at the condominium, except with the express consent of YRCC 570.” Page 5 

Takeaways 
This decision underscores the growing intersection between condominium law, elder care, and mental health. Condominium Boards are increasingly being called upon to address challenging interpersonal situations that extend beyond typical rule violations. This case affirms the vital role Boards and Property Managers play, not just in enforcing rules, but in protecting vulnerable residents and ensuring a safe environment for employees and neighbours alike. 

Further, it is important to remember that, regardless of circumstances, the Act confirms that unit owners are responsible for the conduct of any residents, visitors, and/or other attendees of their units. To this end, the Court highlighted the 2010 Ontario Superior Court decision in Muskoka Condo Corp No. 39 v. Kreutzweiser, which held that: 
“The nature of a condominium is that in return for the advantages gained through common ownership of certain elements, some degree of control over what can be done with those common elements is given up. The details of what is given up are set out in the condominium declaration and its by-laws and rules. It is both the right and obligation of a unit owner or occupier to see that these are obeyed.” 

As Ontario’s population ages, the legal and ethical obligations of condominium corporations will only become more complex. Decisions like YRCC 570 v. Edery are a reminder that compassion and compliance must go hand in hand and that protecting a community sometimes requires firm action. 

Lessons for Condominium Corporations 
1.    Limits of a POA’s Authority: While attorneys acting under valid POAs have broad authority to act on an owner’s behalf, they do not have the right to disregard a condominium’s governing documents or interfere with its obligation to enforce compliance and protect workplace safety. 
2.    Balance Compassion with Compliance: Condominium Boards must show sensitivity when dealing with elderly or cognitively impaired residents. However, this does not absolve them of their statutory duty under Section 119 of the Act to take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance. 
3.    Document Thoroughly and Objectively: Detailed, consistent documentation such as incident reports, communications, and photo/video evidence can make the difference between a successful application and an unenforceable complaint. Property managers and staff should be trained to document issues adequately to safeguard the condominium’s interests. 
4.    Involve the OPGT When Appropriate: The OPGT acts as a safeguard where individuals may lack the ability to understand or make informed decisions, especially in emotionally charged or potentially abusive circumstances. When conflicting POAs arise or capacity is 
in doubt, involving the OPGT may clarify roles, ensure oversight, and protect the interests of vulnerable owners. 
5. Attempt Resolution Before Litigation: The Court in Edery noted that multiple parties attempted to resolve this matter informally before seeking judicial intervention. These good-faith efforts not only demonstrated reasonableness but also served to strengthen the condominium’s legal position. 
6. Be Patient: While Kathryn was an owner, she was also vulnerable. Expect the Court to try to find a balance in advancing conflicting interests. 
 

View PDF View Flipbook Back to Latest Issue