Condominium Corporation deals with Harassment by a Director

In the case of Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2510 v. Sharma, the condominium corporation alleged that a Board member engaged in harassing and disruptive conduct that violated its governing documents and contributed to the resignation of management staff.

The Board member denied wrongdoing, claiming his actions were in the condominium’s best interest.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the Board member’s conduct was intrusive and disruptive, upheld TSCC 2510’s complaint, and ordered the Board member to comply with the corporation’s governing documents.  The Tribunal said:

For the reasons set out below, I find that Mr. Sharma has taken it upon himself to intrude into the management operations of TSCC 2510 in a disruptive way. His conduct became a contributing factor in the resignation of both the condominium manager and the assistant condominium manager. I find that his conduct violated TSCC 2510’s governing documents, in particular the rule on which TSCC 2510 relies. Mr. Sharma’s conduct was, in fact and in law, an annoyance and disruption. I am directing Mr. Sharma to bring himself into compliance with the governing documents of TSCC 2510 and I encourage TSCC 2510 to take specific and concrete steps to reduce the disruptive effect of such conduct.

Mr. Sharma’s attendance at the management office and his inserting himself into management business disrupted the management’s conduct of that business. His repeated emails and his multiple reporting of management to the CMRAO had the same effect. Ultimately, his conduct was a factor in the resignation of both LS and CK. Their decision to leave the management of TSCC 2510 undoubtedly disrupted their lives. Being obliged to recruit and train their successors undoubtedly disrupted the operation of TSCC 2510. I conclude that Mr. Sharma’s conduct was both annoying and disruptive in fact.

Mr. Sharma acted in violation of TSCC 2510’s Rule 1(c) by harassing members of management to the point where two of them cited his conduct as a factor in their decisions to resign. This violation of Rule 1(c) consisted of conduct which was an annoyance and disruption under the Act.

In my view, important takeaways from this case are as follows:

1. All condominium corporations should consider passing a Rule to prohibit violence and harassment on the property, including harassment of the Manager and the Manager’s staff.  [Our readers may also be aware of the obligation upon condominium corporations, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, to protect the corporation’s workers against violence and harassment and to maintain a “Workplace Violence and Harassment Policy”. But a Rule of the sort noted above can provide added protection to workers and also to others (including owners and occupants).]
   
2. If properly drafted, such a Rule can be enforced by way of application to the CAT (as occurred in this case). The enforcement of such a Rule falls within the CAT’s jurisdiction under Section 1(d)(iii.2) of Regulation 179/17.
   
3. More generally: In my view, condominium Directors should not be taking steps to discipline or criticize or direct the condominium corporation’s workers, except when acting in accordance with a decision of the Board, reached at a Board meeting pursuant to Section 32 (1) of the Condominium Act.

Stay tuned to Condo Law News to keep up to date on the latest developments on condominium law!