Legal

February 11, 2026 Published by Huronia Chapter

Multigenerational Living in a Condominium

From the CCI Huronia Winter 2026 Condo Buzz Newsletter

Multigenerational living occurs when two or more generations of a family live under the same roof. Multigenerational living in a condominium presents operational challenges that need to be managed. The choice to age in place (see our article on Aging in Place), creates an opportunity for condominium communities to enhance resident’s quality of life.

Elder Abuse

In the context of multigenerational living, it is essential to consider the dynamics unfolding between generations under one roof. The Board cannot afford to turn a blind eye.

In a recent case, York Region Condominium Corporation No. 570 v. Edery (“YRCC 570”) commenced an application under Section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19 (the “Act”) seeking an order for compliance, as well as prohibiting one of the Respondents, Malka Renee Edery (“Renee”) from occupying or visiting a Unit at YRCC 570 owned by her mother (the Respondent, Kathryn Edery), as a result of her dangerous conduct.

The facts of the case were that Kathryn had purchased the Unit and lived there without issue since 2020 until July 2023, when her daughter, Renee, moved in with her. Kathryn suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and was deemed by her physician incapable of managing her property and personal care. In July 2023, prior to Renee moving into the Unit, Kathryn appointed her other daughters, Esther Ohayon (“Esther”) and Joyce Kadoch (“Joyce”), as her powers of attorney for property and personal care.

Almost immediately after Renee moved into the Unit, her presence resulted in a significant disruption to those around her. The Corporation alleged that Renee had engaged in a campaign of harassment and intimidation towards property management. The Corporation adduced evidence that Renee followed, photographed, and harassed YRCC 570’s property manager, as well as made unfounded accusations of misconduct and elder abuse against her. Renee’s actions towards staff and management were presented as a contravention of Sections 117 of the Act and as conduct that created potential liability under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Justice Fraser found that: i) Renee’s denials did not overcome the serious concerns raised by the evidence; ii) although the police had been called to the Unit without further action, this did not detract from the issues before the Court; and iii) Kathryn lacked the capacity to control or address Renee’s behaviour. The Court ultimately concluded that

“Many people have attempted to resolve this situation without resorting to Court.

However, it has been without success. I conclude that YRCC 570 has demonstrated noncompliance that that Kathryn and Renee are in breach of sections 116, 117 and 119 of the Act and the governing documents of YRCC 570.

I do not fault Kathryn for the current situation. In my view, she does not have the ability to exert control over Renee. The remedy is for Renee to leave the unit and for her to be prevented from visiting her mother at the condominium, except with the express consent of YRCC 570.”

Takeaways

This decision highlights the growing intersection of condominium law, elder care, and mental health. Condominium Boards are increasingly being asked to address interpersonal situations that extend beyond typical rule violations. It is important to remember that, regardless of circumstances, the Act confirms that unit owners are responsible for the conduct of any residents, visitors, and/or other attendees of their units. However, this case affirms the shared responsibilities that unit owners and employees have to protect vulnerable residents and ensuring a safe environment.

See our full article on Multigenerational Living in a Condominium In Marazzato v. Wentworth Common Elements Condominium Corporation No. 519 2025 ONCAT 173 2025-11-27

WCECC 519 is a common elements condominium and owners hold parcels of tied land (“POTLs”). Belinda Marazzato (“the Applicant”) owns one such POTL. Over several years, she received multiple notices, compliance letters, and chargeback letters relating to alleged parking violations—specifically, use of the condominium’s visitor parking and parking.

The governing documents initially contained only a declaration provision (Article 3.4) stating that visitor parking could be used solely by “visitors and guests” of residents. In June 2022, the Board amended the Rules to add Rule 12, which imposed new visitor-parking restrictions, including a maximum number of overnight stays, a prohibition on residents using visitor parking, and requirements for Board approval for extended stays. The Board later issued various “policies” in 2022–2024 that purported to adjust the number of warning letters before legal enforcement and supplement the visitor-parking restrictions.

Between 2018 and 2024, the Applicant received numerous notices and chargebacks for alleged visitor-parking violations, totaling $1,880.99. She commenced this CAT application challenging:

(1) the validity of WCECC 519’s visitor-parking rules and policies;
(2) the reasonableness of enforcement;
(3) the validity of the chargebacks; and
(4) allegations of harassment by Board members.

WCECC 519 maintained that all charges were lawful and that its directors did not engage in harassment.

During the hearing, the Tribunal released Zolis v. Wentworth C.E.C.C. 519, a decision involving nearly identical issues, and the parties were invited to make submissions on its relevance.

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s arguments that the visitor-parking provisions were confusing or invalid. It found that Article 3.4 of the Declaration and Rule 12 were enacted in accordance with the Act and were generally clear and enforceable. This is important to note: consistency and clarity in drafting. Boards should be periodically reviewing the constating documents to ensure consistency, clarity and intention.

The Tribunal identified one ambiguity in Rule 12—its reference to “3 overnight (9 p.m. to 7 a.m.) stays per 7- day period”—noting that this wording could be interpreted either as three overnight stays or as authorizing a total of 72 hours of parking per week. Despite this ambiguity, the overall rule remained valid.

However, the Tribunal held that WCECC 519’s various visitor-parking “policies” adopted after Rule 12 were not valid to the extent that they purported to modify Rule 12. The Tribunal confirmed that a condominium corporation cannot amend its Rules by policy; any amendment must follow s. 58 of the Act, including proper notice to owners and the opportunity to requisition a meeting.

The Tribunal determined that Article 3.4 of the Declaration and Rule 12 are valid and enforceable. Visitorparking policies issued after the rule amendment are not enforceable to the extent that they attempt to amend or alter Rule 12 without following the statutory amendment process. The Board retains broad discretion in choosing enforcement actions, but that discretion is limited by the requirement that enforcement be reasonable and based on valid governing documents. See our article on Balancing the Business Judgment Rule with Oppression Remedy for a Condominium Corporation.

---

Patricia Elia
Elia & Associates PC