Legal

June 5, 2025 Published by Toronto and Area Chapter - By Sienna Molu

Decisions From the Courts

From the Spring 2025 issue of CCI Toronto Condovoice Magazine.

Oppression remedies, legacy agreements, and court-ordered forced sales

Frankel v. York Region Condominium Corporation No. 664, 2025 ONSC 719A

Cautionary Tale in Condominium Governance: When a Unit Owner’s Rights Are Ignored

Condominium living is often described as a delicate balance between collective governance and individual rights. When that balance tilts too far in favor of costcutting or bureaucratic convenience, the results can be disastrous. Frankel v. York Region Condominium Corporation No. 664 (“Frankel”) is a textbook example of what happens when a condominium board dismisses a unit owner’s legitimate concerns, ultimately facing legal and financial consequences for its missteps.

At the center of this case was Joshua Frankel, an 80-year-old unit owner at York Region Condominium Corporation No. 664 (the “Corporation”), who had a simple yet fundamental expectation: the right to a peaceful home. His battle was not over a trivial inconvenience but a persistent, low-frequency mechanical noise emanating from the Corporation’s aging water pumps—an intrusive and unrelenting disturbance that robbed him of sleep and peace of mind. What began as a straightforward noise complaint quickly escalated into a legal showdown over a condominium corporation’s duty to honor agreements, respect statutory obligations, and uphold fairness in community management.

The Dispute: A Board’s Broken Promises

Despite multiple complaints and investigations, the Corporation failed to remedy the noise problem. Eventually, a settlement was reached: the Corporation agreed to install specified new pumps to resolve the issue. But instead of honoring its promise, it installed a cheaper alternative— one that failed to address the noise, leaving Frankel trapped in a cycle of sleep deprivation and frustration. The board’s decision was not just a breach of contract; it was a demonstration of bad faith, dismissing the well-being of a resident in favor of financial expediency.

The failure to resolve Frankel’s complaint exposed the Corporation to liability under section 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”), which protects unit owners from oppressive and unfair treatment. The court found that the board’s refusal to install the agreed-upon equipment and its disregard for Frankel’s ongoing suffering amounted to oppression and a breach of his reasonable expectations. Furthermore, the court recognized the health implications of prolonged noise exposure under section 117 of the Act, acknowledging that sleep deprivation can cause serious physical and psychological harm.

The Court’s Verdict: A Resounding Reprimand for the Board

Justice Akazaki’s ruling was clear and uncompromising: condominium corporations are not above the law, nor can they evade their contractual responsibilities under the guise of fiscal prudence. The court ordered the Corporation to take immediate steps to resolve the noise issue, imposing a strict timeline and requiring an independent acoustic assessment to verify compliance.

To drive home the seriousness of the Corporation’s failures, the court awarded Frankel $32,500 in damages, recognizing the undue hardship he endured. Additionally, the Corporation was ordered to pay $30,000 in legal costs—an implicit rebuke of its oppressive conduct and a reminder that ignoring a unit owner’s legitimate concerns can come with a hefty price tag.

Notably, while the court did not explicitly mandate the installation of the originally proposed pumps, it strongly suggested that failure to do so could lead to further liability. This ruling sends a clear message: cost-saving measures will not be tolerated when they come at the expense of a resident’s fundamental rights.

Key Takeaways

1. The Oppression Remedy is a Shield for Unit Owners
   This decision reinforces that condominium boards must act in good faith and align their decisions with unit owners’ reasonable expectations. When a board disregards a resident’s legitimate rights in favor of administrative ease or financial convenience, courts will intervene. The oppression remedy under section 135 of the Act is a powerful tool to prevent unit owners from being steamrolled by corporate decision-making.
2. Noise Complaints Can Be a Serious Legal Issue
   A key takeaway from this case is that persistent noise disturbances are not merely an annoyance—they can rise to the level of a prohibited condition under section 117 of the Act if they pose a risk to health and well-being. Boards cannot dismiss these complaints as subjective grievances; they must take reasonable steps to mitigate nuisances that compromise an owner’s ability to enjoy their home.
3. A Deal is a Deal: Settlement Agreements Must Be Honored
   Condominium corporations cannot unilaterally modify agreements to suit their preferences. The board’s decision to install a cheaper, ineffective alternative instead of the agreedupon solution was not just a breach of contract—it was an act of bad faith that directly contributed to the finding of oppression. This case serves as a stark reminder that transparency and accountability are non-negotiable in condominium governance.

Comment on s. 134(5) of the Act: A Misstep in the Decision

While Frankel is a landmark case in many respects, paragraph 38 of the decision contains an oversight regarding legal cost recovery under s. 134(5) of the Act. The ruling suggests that unit owners lack a provision analogous to the one allowing corporations to recover full indemnity costs when enforcing compliance. However, this interpretation overlooks the significant amendments made in 2017 under Bill 106, Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015, which redefined the scope of cost recovery and introduced greater scrutiny to ensure fairness.

Though s. 134(5) explicitly favors corporations, courts have increasingly recognized that in cases of oppression under s. 135, equitable principles justify awarding substantial or even full legal costs to unit owners who successfully challenge corporate overreach. The omission of this nuance oversimplifies the statutory framework and fails to reflect the evolving judicial approach toward fairness in condominium disputes.

A Landmark Decision for Condominium Residents

Frankel is a wake-up call for condominium boards and property managers: unit owners are not powerless. Governance decisions cannot prioritize cost-efficiency at the expense of fairness and legal compliance. When a condominium corporation dismisses a resident’s legitimate concerns, breaches a settlement agreement, and forces an owner into litigation to seek relief, courts will step in to ensure justice prevails.

For condominium boards, the message is unambiguous: your community is not just a business—it’s a home for real people. While financial prudence is important, it cannot come at the cost of trust, accountability, and the well-being of the residents you serve. Boards that fail to recognize this reality do so at their peril, as Frankel makes abundantly clear.

Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 383 v. Laflamme, 2024 ONCAT 136

When Individual Preferences Collide with Community Rules: A Tribunal’s Firm Stand on Smoking Bans in Condominiums

Few disputes in condominium living are as contentious as smoking bans. When individual habits clash with community rules, tensions can quickly escalate. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 383 v. Laflamme (“Laflamme”) is a stark example of what happens when a unit owner refuses to comply with a nosmoking policy, testing the boundaries of condominium governance and enforcement. In a decisive ruling, the Condominium Authority Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) reaffirmed that condominium corporations have both the authority and the obligation to enforce smoking prohibitions, even against longtime smokers unwilling to quit.

This case underscores a broader trend: tribunals and courts are increasingly prioritizing community well-being over individual preferences, particularly when second-hand smoke affects neighbors. The ruling highlights a unit owner’s duty to respect condominium rules, the temporary nature of “legacy” exemptions, and the financial consequences of persistent non-compliance.

The Background: A Standoff Over Smoke

Ms. Ginette Laflamme, a unit owner in Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 383 (the “Corporation”), had been smoking in her unit for years. When the Corporation enacted a no-smoking rule effective June 30, 2019, existing smokers were granted a “legacy” exemption, allowing them to continue smoking indoors temporarily, so long as they took reasonable steps to prevent smoke from drifting into common areas and neighboring units.

However, even before the full ban took effect, residents had begun filing complaints about tobacco smoke emanating from Ms. Laflamme’s unit and seeping into hallways. The complaints persisted well beyond June 2019, despite repeated warnings and compliance notices from the Corporation. Laflamme, steadfast in her defiance, insisted she was “too old to quit” and continued smoking indoors, prompting the Corporation to escalate enforcement efforts.

After exhausting all amicable solutions, including multiple written warnings, emails, and personal outreach, the Corporation took the matter to the Tribunal, seeking an order to force compliance.

The Tribunal’s Ruling: No Room for Defiance

The Tribunal ruled unequivocally in favor of the Corporation, finding that Ms. Laflamme was in direct violation of both the No-Smoking Rule and the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”). The Tribunal determined that the persistent infiltration of smoke into common areas and neighboring units constituted a nuisance under section 117(2) of the Act, affirming the Corporation’s right to take action.

Importantly, the Tribunal acknowledged that the Corporation had done everything reasonably possible to secure Ms. Laflamme’s voluntary compliance before resorting to legal action. Given her continued defiance, the Tribunal found that financial penalties were necessary to recover enforcement costs and deter further non-compliance.

Tribunal’s Orders: Compliance Comes at a Cost

The Tribunal issued a strict compliance order with multiple directives to ensure enforcement:

• Immediate Cessation of Indoor Smoking – Ms. Laf lamme was ordered to immediately cease smoking inside her unit and comply fully with the Corporation’s no-smoking regulations.
• Right of Access for Enforcement – The Corporation was granted authority to enter Ms. Laflamme’s unit with two hours’ notice if future smoke-related complaints arose, allowing prompt verification of compliance.
• Financial Penalties – Ms. Laflamme was ordered to reimburse the Corporation for its enforcement-related expenses, including:
  • $1,356.00 for prior legal enforcement efforts,
  • $150.00 for tribunal filing fees, and
  • $1,000.00 toward the Corporation’s legal costs.
• Lien for Unpaid Costs – If Ms. Laflamme failed to pay the ordered costs, the Corporation was entitled to recover them by adding the amount to her common expenses. Under section 1.45(2) of the Act, non-payment could ultimately result in a lien against her unit, ensuring the Corporation’s ability to recover the costs.

Key Takeaways

1. No-Smoking Rules Are Enforceable— and Tribunals Will Uphold Them This ruling sends a clear message: as long as no-smoking policies are properly enacted and communicated, unit owners must comply. Long-time smokers do not have a permanent right to continue smoking if a condominium community adopts a ban.
2. Legacy Exemptions Have Limits Ms. Laflamme’s ability to smoke under a “legacy” exemption was temporary— not a lifelong right. The Tribunal’s ruling confirms that condominium boards can phase out exemptions without being required to provide indefinite accommodations.
3. Persistent Non-Compliance Will Be Met with Financial Consequences The Tribunal did not hesitate to impose financial penalties on Ms. Laflamme for her repeated disregard of condominium rules. Unit owners should take note: failing to comply with condominium regulations can lead to substantial legal costs, potential liens, and enforcement actions that may impact property ownership.

The Future of Smoking Bans in Condominiums: A Growing Trend

The ruling in Laflamme aligns with a broader legal trend toward stricter enforcement of condominium rules, particularly those impacting health, safety, and community well-being. With the increasing adoption of smoke-free residential buildings, courts and tribunals are showing little tolerance for residents who refuse to comply with legally enacted restrictions.

For condominium residents, the message is clear: personal preferences do not override community rules. Whether the issue is smoking, noise, or other persistent nuisances, unit owners must respect the collective rights of their neighbors—or face legal and financial consequences.

For condominium boards and property managers, this decision reinforces the importance of proactive, documented enforcement. As seen in this case, a well-documented strategy—including written notices, legal warnings, and independent verification—can ensure success in legal proceedings.

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2931 v. Tsatskin, 2024 ONSC 6392

When Misconduct Makes Condominium Living Impossible: A Rare Case of a Forced Unit Sale

In a striking example of how extreme misconduct can unravel the fabric of condominium living, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2931 v. Tsatskin (“Tsatskin”) stands as one of the rare cases where a court ordered the forced sale of a unit. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice took this extraordinary step to protect residents from persistent harassment, vandalism, and abuse at the hands of a single owner. The case underscores the growing willingness of courts to impose severe consequences when an owner’s behavior makes communal living untenable.

At the heart of this case was the question: Can a condominium corporation force a unit owner to sell their property due to egregious rule violations? The court answered with a resounding ‘yes,’ making it clear that when an owner repeatedly disrupts the cooperative foundation of condominium life, expulsion may be the only solution.

Background: A Pattern of Harassment and Violence

The respondent, Marina Tsatskin, had been a unit owner at Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2931 (the “Corporation”) since October 2022. From the outset, her presence in the community was marked by escalating misconduct, including acts of vandalism, physical assault, and harassment of residents.

Among the most shocking allegations were incidents of hate-motivated vandalism, including spray-painting swastikas on residents’ doors. She physically assaulted another resident by spray-painting her face and hands. Tsatskin also unleashed a barrage of racist, anti-Semitic, and offensive verbal abuse, including calling one resident a “Nazi.”

Her disruptive behavior extended beyond verbal and physical aggression. She accused fellow residents of involvement in human trafficking and stalking— completely unfounded claims that fueled a climate of fear. This unrelenting harassment forced the Corporation to seek an interim injunction on November 2, 2023, banning her from residing in the condominium or using its common elements. The court later extended the order, recognizing the psychological harm caused to residents and emphasizing that her conduct was irreconcilable with community living.

The Court’s Ruling: A Final Chance Squandered

By April 8, 2024, the court concluded that Tsatskin had flagrantly violated the condominium’s declaration, by-laws, and rules, and that she had forfeited her right to remain in the building. Rather than ordering an immediate sale of her unit, the court initially granted her a final opportunity to comply, warning that any further misconduct would result in a forced sale.

The Final Breach: Retaliation and Escalation

Rather than demonstrating remorse, Tsatskin doubled down on her misconduct. Evidence presented to the court showed that she and her family engaged in retaliatory and vexatious tactics, including:

• Filing baseless complaints with the Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”) and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) against residents and their legal counsel.
• Targeting residents’ employers by filing HRTO complaints against companies where her adversaries worked, seemingly to damage their careers.
• Sending explicit and harassing emails, including one to building management and legal counsel containing a vulgar image and inappropriate message.

With this continued campaign of intimidation, the Corporation returned to court, seeking the ultimate remedy: a court-ordered forced sale of Tsatskin’s unit.

The Court’s Final Decision: A Rare Forced Sale and Permanent Injunction

On November 27, 2024, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that Tsatskin had willfully breached the April 2024 order, leaving no alternative but to compel the sale of her unit. The key components of the ruling included:

• Mandatory Sale of the Unit – Tsatskin was ordered to enter into an agreement of purchase and sale within three months, with a closing date no later than six months from the ruling. If she failed to do so, the Corporation was authorized to take control of the sale and seek an order for vacant possession.
• Financial Penalties and Cost Recovery – The proceeds from the sale of the unit would be used to cover all outstanding legal costs owed to the Corporation. Any unpaid amounts would be added to her unit’s common expenses, which, if left unpaid, could result in a lien against the property.
• Indemnity Costs – The Corporation was awarded $30,000.00 in substantial indemnity costs, reinforcing the financial consequences of prolonged non-compliance.
• Compensation for Victims – An additional $25,000.00 was awarded to the residents who were directly targeted by Tsatskin’s harassment, acknowledging the harm inf licted upon them.
• Permanent Injunction – To prevent further misconduct, the court imposed a permanent injunction prohibiting Tsatskin and her family from:
  • Communicating with or harassing residents, their families, or their employers.
  • Initiating legal or regulatory complaints against residents without prior court approval.
  • Residing in or leasing any unit within the condominium.

Key Takeaways

1. A Forced Sale Is an Extreme but Viable Remedy
   While rare, this case confirms that courts are willing to order the sale of a condominium unit when an owner’s misconduct makes communal living impossible. This remedy is reserved for the most egregious cases, but it remains an option when all other enforcement measures fail.
2. Harassment and Retaliatory Complaints Have Legal Consequences The court took a firm stance against Tsatskin’s abuse of legal and regulatory complaint mechanisms. Filing baseless HRTO and LSO complaints to harass fellow residents was deemed a serious form of misconduct.
3. Condominium Corporations Have a Duty to Protect Residents The Corporation’s decisive actions, including securing restraining orders and seeking a forced sale, were necessary steps to protect the safety and wellbeing of its residents. This ruling underscores that boards have not only the authority but also the obligation to take action against problematic owners.

Balancing Property Rights and Community Welfare

This case sets a significant precedent in condominium law, reinforcing that individual property rights do not extend to conduct that jeopardizes the safety and harmony of the community. Condominium living requires a fundamental level of respect for shared spaces and governing rules. When an owner crosses the line into sustained harassment and intimidation, the courts have demonstrated their willingness to intervene decisively.

For unit owners, Tsatskin serves as a stark warning: persistent misconduct can lead to eviction, financial penalties, and even forced sale. For condominium boards, this case affirms their authority to take legal action when a resident’s behavior threatens the well-being of the community.

As condominium living continues to evolve, this ruling underscores a critical balance—while property ownership carries rights, those rights are not absolute when they infringe upon the peace and security of others. When that balance is irreparably broken, courts have shown they are prepared to restore order— no matter how drastic the remedy may be.

---

Sienna Molu, Founder & Principal Lawyer, Molu Law