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
CAFCOR Forum
_GEN_GOTOBOTTOM Post Reply
TOPIC:
#19217
FRAGILE HARASSER hit by section 134 (RESTRAINING ) Order : 15 unit community reached UNDUE HARDSHIP 2021/05/03 18:49  
not legal advice, as usual.

"sticks & stones may break your bones but names . . . etc "

aphorism ? proverb ? with arguably recent roots ( mid 19th century ? ) to urge chillin' out / non-violent response especially where schoolyard aggressors are Teflon-coated by Youth Justice System. Is it really believed by advice-giving parents after being defamed themselves ?

How about if deluges of such abuse get circulated within your own compact community by e-mails accompanied by endless-loop amplified denunciations . . . surveillance photos . . . threats to mail asbestos to other owners . . . harassment of contractors . . . denials of unit access to link safety systems ? . . . the harasser being criminally charged . . .?

M.T.C.C. # 580 v Mills (2021) ONSC 2616

The principles actually break no new ground in Ontario. ( But it's still an eye-popper for other reasons ! )

( Other harassment decisions have included

Friend ( 2013-19 ) “BOUNDARIES of DISAGREEMENT : injunction against OWNER for workplace harassment & obstruction” https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=18983&catid=2

Robinson 2017 ( “RESTRAINT ORDER & $ 15 K award hits toxic staff E-MAIL ABUSER Y.C.C. # 163 v ROBINSON” https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=18720&catid=9#18720

2010 Korolekh expulsion https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=11735&catid=2#11735 )


Mr Justice F.L. Myers issues – against an S.R.L. respondent NAMED harasser with non-identified disability - ( article by respected Ottawa lawyer Jim Davidson cites “anxiety” ) - said to trigger harassment - almost identical s 134 Order as first sought pre-pandemic June 2019 by 15 unit To condo corp without PMC . Application took almost TWO YEARS to reach this point albeit amidst COVID-19 . . .

Subject to contempt proceedings if violated, the section 134 Order imposes restraints on the no-longer resident Respondent held in breach of Condo Act 1998’s section 117 Dangerous Activities & section 135 Oppression.

Arguably it keeps the harasser - cited non-resident since summer 2020 - allegedly headed towards selling, but will that occur ?

Citing that SEVEN ( 7 ) different counsels had discontinued on the harassers's behalf, there are startling judicial measures to demonstrate that the court accepted the harasser was mentally capable of responding without triggering his anxiety ( or whatever ). ( And that it then properly accommodated whatever the harassers's challenges to meaningfully respond in the judicial forum ) see SCC Starson v Swayze 2003 : judges - not the clinicians - would ultimately determine whether an individual was N.C.R. not criminally responsible for alleged criminal threats. Even if there is arguably no clear formula for CIVIL incapacity including S.D.A. legislation ).

Details are sketchy about duration - possibly begun over the harasser's tested but un-confirmed belief that his unit was asbestos-contaminated.

Plus almost certainly WRONG BELIEF that any remediation is a condo corporation responsibility ( Declaration is not excerpted )

Judge finds the harasser's oppression & dangerous activities surpassed “duty to accommodate” to undue hardship whatever his disability.

Condo Act 1998's 117 & 134 :

deluged the Board with harassing E-mails, issued threats to mail asbestos to other owners especially the President ( for whose threats he has been charged criminally ) , played cycles of audio denunciations, recorded Pres movements , refused unit access to complete fire safety works & triggered independent contractors & employees to refuse to attend without security !

Heard enough ?

Will he actually sell ?


If he wasn't anxious enough beforehand, wait till he reads about LAWFUL cost-download additions to recover costs of OBTAINING the Order ?

P.S. # 1 "CPC" "Civil Practice Court" is a Toronto judicial traffic ( prelim ) case management by duty judges ( ? 2015 ? ) https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/practice/practice-directions/toronto/t/

# 2 The loud-speakering actually occurred in our Building Scheme out here on the frontier full of retired folks & bears & coyotes . But nobody got denounced. The individual Scheme owner just sold & left without any known dispute at all.

M.T.C.C. # 580 v Mills (2021) ONSC 2616 issued April 8/21 https://canlii.ca/t/jf5p9
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#19218
FRAGILE HARASSER hit by section 134 (RESTRAINING ) Order : 15 unit community reached UNDUE HARDSHIP 2021/05/04 12:05  
Not legal advice.

1 - Veteran Toronto Justice Fred Myers has crafted a transparent & careful path through judicial landmines.

Subjecting the STILL - OWNER harasser to potential contempt of court charges, may be the best outcome short of adding his unit to the lengthening list of compulsory unit sales in Ontario & B.C.

How easy will it be for the harasser - reportedly not in residence for a year - to get himself together well enough to sell the unit ? IF EVER ? Further, because the Order names him & will financially cost him bigtime ( remember the Order-obtaining cost downloads ) , how welcoming now will be future housing solutions ?

2 - Wider, how many stubborn disputes in shared ownership communities may eventually reach this level of toxic disruption ?

Where attitudes or mental issues preclude making a deal to suck up some vexation, some of these wild west scenarios have had very bad outcomes.

3 - Several excepts from the above Order ( again with respondent's name shielded ) :

" . . . .[3] The condominium corporation claims that for several years Mr. XXX has terrorized the community to the extent that owners do not use some common areas for fear of being harassed by Mr. XXX.

Numerous third part contractors refuse to attend the condominium to provide much-needed maintenance and repairs due Mr. XXX's unrelenting harassment of their employees.

It claims that the fire alarm system in the condominium was not functioning properly for a number of years due to Mr. XXX's refusal to allow contractors to access his unit in accordance with the rules of the condominium.

He threatened to send asbestos to peoples’ homes. He played audio recordings loud enough for the whole condominium community to hear on a repeating loop for hours at a time.

He has been charged with criminal harassment of the President of the condominium corporation.

. . . . . [25] I completely accept the imperative for the court to accommodate Mr. XXX's disability to the point of undue hardship.

But the accommodation is to ensure that Mr. XXX has a fair opportunity to participate and advance his position in this proceeding. He has had far longer than the three to six months respite some doctors suggested for Mr. XXX in 2020 and before.

. . . . [35] As noted previously, I have no doubt that Mr. XXX finds his manner of communication driven by his disabilities.

But it is oppressive and undue hardship to force others to endure harassment and oppression by him.

. . . . . [44] The facts easily amount of breaches of s. 117 of the statute and oppression. . . “ - unquote
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster