Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
RESTRAINT ORDER & $ 15 K award hits toxic staff E-MAIL ABUSER Y.C.C. # 163 v ROBINSON 2017/04/21 23:08  
Can E-mails - some acknowledged as valid complaints - create a toxic workplace danger ?

Can the validity of some of her claims be validly construed as to enhance the exposure of the alleged victims ?

Both sides with counsel, an E-MAIL CRITIC OWNER is here hit with a permanent restraint order.

PLUS for all inclusive $15 K of the prevailing costs of Y.C.C. # 163 ( plus her own ) for what Justice EM Morgan holds is ongoing toxic staff abuse by E-MAIL.

Holds the defendant owner's personal insults reach a sufficiently toxic personal level as to violate the Occupational Health & Safety Act RSO 1990 ch O.1 and dangerous activities S 117 of the Condo Act 1998 & a Rule.

Interesting & possibly dubious aspect is the finding that the recipients claim to be even more vulnerable to her personal insults because her e-mails may contain valid reports.

"Gotta read" ? Her valid input thus is put to work against her here for allegedly magnifying the targets' exposure to her alleged toxicity !

YCC # 163 v Robinson 2017 ONSC 2419 issued April 19/17

xcrpt Endorsement Justice E.M. Morgan

cites Roth, Wong, Korolekh, Weeks (Ottawa 2003 ) and OIKLE 1994 MTCC #850 v Oikle 1994 ; xcrpt Endorsement

. . . [4] Counsel for the Respondent submits that his client is a habitual email writer.

He agrees that she is also a complainer.

He points out, however, that as a resident of the building she has a right to complain.

Not only that, but some of her complaints are valid. She has complained about the hot water in the building being turned off for extended periods of time, about doorways that are broken and will not close, and other matters that the Applicant concedes need to be attended to.

[5] Because of this situation, management of the building does not want to ignore the Respondent’s emails. She often brings important maintenance issues to their attention.

Thus, although it is possible to ignore a person’s emails by simply deleting them without opening and reading them, management is not anxious to do that.

They do want to know what the Respondent has to say.

[6] The problem is that the Respondent has somehow formed the view that she should express herself by calling the office manager and other employees in the building degrading epithets and labels. . . .

[15] Again, counsel for the Applicant points out that the Applicant is not seeking to silence the Respondent or to create a situation in which she is unable to articulate her criticisms and complaints about the building.

They are merely trying to get her to communicate in a civil, non-harassing manner... " - unquote
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
Is TOXIC WORKPLACE DEFENCE being used to gag critics ? ( Y.C.C. # 163 v ROBINSON ) 2017/12/15 23:11  
Is UNCIVIL criticism a toxic workplace harassment if its either persistent or annoying enough ? "You big fat jerk etc " . . .

1 -What's being done in the condo universe with the April 2017 Robinson award of $15 K against an uncivil e-mail critic ?

( In perspective my own M.P.P. has recently been accused of workplace harassment for representations - on behalf of constituents - made to a municipal council about what some constituents allege is serious PLANNING ACT mis-administration.

Unfortunately there may have been e-mails directly to some planning staff, but it is unclear what was said and how said. Abusing politicians may be OK but not directly to employees IF - IF - that happened at all.

The municipality purports to have jurisdiction to lay charges against the M.P.P. That junior level of government has appointed its own investigator, who failed to compel the M.P.P. to submit to such investigator's interrogatories ( ! ! ) about the M.P.P.'s conduct in representing such M.P.P.'s constituents . . . What will the Provincial election do with this ? )

2 - The anonymous folks at CondoMadness ( Dec 13/17 ) have speculated the Robinson decision & $15 K award in a condo criticism dispute out of Mississauga.

CondoMadness reports a condo corp’s lawyer is accusing an owner critic of workplace harassment.

The lawyer's quoted threat appears to include to unilaterally misuse otherwise lawful lien powers based on unplatformed so-called indemnification without court order nor legal basis. It's demanding some form of fine or - respectfully - a shakedown.

CondoMadness also cites possibly Rights triggering factors within the dispute.

3 Addendum Jan 2/18

Against BigTime kvetchers, will management really start Big Time defending with ( the Ontario Condominium Act 1998's ) Section 117 ( "Dangerous Activities . . . likely to cause injury") ?

Jan 2/18 CCI-Toronto's audio TwitterBlog presents highly respected Toronto lawyer Mario Deo's endorsement of such use where a kvetching owner 's non-violent conduct can be presented as so uncivil as to be construed as endangering "psychological injury" within the workplace ?

Mr Deo "reviews the bar set" as conduct in the condo workplace that is "neither transient nor trifling". ( Would it be like everyday New York interactions ? )

But that reaches likely "psychological injury".

Here the held "likely injury" was linked to body-shaming, derogatory comments etc . . .

( one minor point : the Robinson legal judgment describes the Robinson kvetcher as female, not male despite what the blog says )

CROSS REFERENCE Jan 5/18 : Is there a MANAGEMENT DUTY to restrain etc . . . ?
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster