Injunctions (Re: Owners)

Peel Standard Condominium Corporation v. Jakacki, 2020 ONSC 3697 (CanLII)

[2] The Application is brought to remove the Respondent from the unit under the provisions of the Condominium Act S.O. 1998 c. 19 on the basis that he has engaged in disruptive and violent behavior. That Application will have to be adjudicated by the Courts in due course. In the interim, the Applicant seeks an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Respondent from using the condominium’s common areas except to enter and exit the building.

Should An Injunction Be Granted?

[30] The question I have to determine on this motion is whether a temporary injunction preventing the Respondent from using the common areas of the condominium except for ingress and egress should be granted. The test for granting an injunction is well-known and is set out in R.J.R. MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General) (1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 at para 43). The moving party must show:

a) There is a serious question to be tried;

b) The moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted;

c) The balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction.

[31] I will deal with each element of the test in turn.

York Condominium Corporation No. 137 v. Hayes, 2012 ONSC 4590 (CanLII)

[24] The condominium is entitled to apply under s. 134 of the Act for relief to prevent the continuance of uncivil, improper and illegal conduct towards condominium owners. In York Condominium Corporation No. 136 v. Roth 2006 CarswellOnt 5129, Perell J. wrote:

[T]here is uncontradicted evidence that Mr. Roth disrupted an owner’s meeting on June 13, 2006 and physically assaulted the Condominium Corporation’s president. There is also uncontradicted evidence of rude, aggressive, abusive, and dismissive behavior by Mr. Roth in his relations with his neighbors, contractors that provide services to the condominium, and with the staff that manages the Condominium Corporation.

Accepting this evidence, and there is no basis for me not to do so, the Condominium Corporation is justified in seeking an order that Mr. Roth cease and desist from his uncivil, improper and illegal conduct that violates the Condominium Act 1998 or the bylaws and rules of the Condominium Corporation.

The issue then is how should the court exercise its discretion under s. 134 of the Act to require Mr. Roth to conduct himself only in accordance with his rights and obligations in under the Condominium Act 1998 and the declarations, bylaws, and rules of the Condominium Corporation.

[47] As noted above, the condominium seeks a broad, permanent injunction restraining the respondent’s conduct in virtually all aspects of her interaction with the condominium and the members of its community. In my view, the scope of the restraining order sought against the respondent is both overreaching and unworkable.

[48] However, having regard to my conclusions set out above, I am satisfied that the respondent’s behavior, some of which occurred after the respondent had notice of these proceedings, warrants some form of restraining order.

[49] Accordingly, an order shall issue requiring the respondent:

(1) to be of good behavior and keep the peace while on any property associated with the condominium;

(2) to cease and desist from uncivil, improper or illegal conduct that violates the Act or declaration, bylaws or rules of the condominium;

(3) to refrain from assaulting, verbally abusing, swearing at, harassing, threatening or intimidating any member of the board, unit owner or occupier or staff member, contractor or other person doing business with the condominium including, without limitation, any person who has sworn an affidavit or provided evidence of any kind in this application; and

(4) to refrain from approaching, within 15 feet, except at a duly authorized board meeting or duly authorized meeting of unit owners: Maria Santos, Ana Agostinho, Sherry Dasilva, Ruth Abraham, Joao Tavares or Nedda Zaharelos.