Quiet Enjoyment Interrupted: How to Handle Unruly Non-Compliance

Nobody wants to deal with rude and noisy neighbours; least of all condominiums. Unruly and aggressive residents create an atmosphere of tension, distress, and annoyance that can disillusion fellow owners and discourage new buyers. In extreme cases, like the one summarized below, trying to mitigate disruptions and conflicts caused by unmanageable occupants can cost thousands of dollars before a solution is even reached.

A recent case heard by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed such an issue, and its outcome provides useful tips on how to deal with complaints that arise due to unruly occupants. As seen in the judgment below, documenting and retaining evidence of as many instances of disruption and conflict as possible can make all the difference.

In the case, a condominium board and its residents finally reached their breaking point with a problematic owner. Multiple complaints had been filed against the individual over the years, including for excessive noise and profanity, rude and aggressive behaviour, the harassment of directors and outside contractors, as well as ignoring bans from accessing exclusive use common areas, including the communal pool.

The condominium tried to convince the owner to modify his behaviour, and even paid to arrange a mediation session, which the respondent owner did not attend. As a result, the condominium commenced an application in the Kitchener Superior Court of Justice for violations of the condominium’s Rules, as well as the provisions of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Specifically, the condominium asserted that the owner (the respondent) had violated the following sections of the Act:

Section 117 – Prohibits actions or conditions which are likely to damage the property or cause illness or injury to an individual.

Section 119 – states that relevant parties, such as owners, residents, occupiers, guests, and employees, shall comply with the provisions contained within the Act, as well as the Condominium’s own Declaration, By-laws, and Rules.

The Condominium also had provisions restricting nuisances, disturbances, annoyances, and anything else that prevents other residents from quietly enjoying their property. However, in court, all that matters is what can be proven; and so the condominium had to back up these broad prohibitions with specific evidence.

As proof, the condominium submitted various forms of documentary evidence with their application. Affidavits—sworn statements of fact—included testimonies of various residents’ and contractors’ experiences with the respondent. The condominium also submitted direct video evidence of a particularly belligerent 12-minute rant, submitted by a former neighbour who felt forced to move out due to the misconduct.

One of the ways that the Condominium prepared a strong case in this matter was by requisitioning the evidentiary support of contractors who had also experienced negative interactions with the respondent. Courts will often allow “hearsay” evidence to some extent, as long as it is collected under certain exceptional circumstances. One of these circumstances is hearsay that is contained within business records made in the ordinary course of business, at the time of the occurrence, by a person obliged to record the information. This enabled the Condominium to include the property maintenance company’s reports detailing the interactions with the owner into evidence.

Given the overwhelming evidence of unruly and belligerent behaviour, combined with the total lack of cooperation from the respondent to correct the situation, the court ruled in the Condominium’s favour. It also helped that the Condominium had documented prior attempts to remedy the conflict, to no avail. The final ruling by the judge authorized the following substantive orders:

• Respondent must refrain from uncivil, improper, or illegal conduct that violates the Act, declaration, by-laws and rules;
• Respondent must refrain from assaulting, verbally abusing, swearing at, harassing, threatening or intimidating any resident, owner, director, employee, contractor, manager or other person doing business or visiting the Condominium;
• The respondent must refrain from confronting, speaking to, or contacting in any way the person who swore affidavits or provided evidence in this case;
• The respondent must pay damages of $9,128.73 to the Condominium;
• The respondent must reimburse the applicants for all legal costs incurred prior to this application, including the mediation he failed to attend; and
• The respondent must pay the Condominium full indemnity costs on this application in the amount of $19,803.01 within 30 days.

All in all, this case was a resounding win for condominiums and owners. It demonstrates how important keeping accurate, up-to-date records really is, and how vital documenting this kind of behaviour can be when seeking relief from the courts.

This blog was written by Evan Demarest, Summer Law Student, and edited by Michelle Kelly.