Condo managers face increasing demands and rising levels of harassment. Many have left the profession because their workplaces are not safe, free of bullying and verbal abuse. Since most managers work on the condominium property, the condominium corporation must ensure a safe workplace under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

Disgruntled owners or occupants cause much of the bullying and verbal abuse over board decisions implemented by the manager. Managers are usually the first to receive these complaints. While owners and residents should be able to raise concerns, they should not express such discontent in any manner they wish. There are limits on what is considered an acceptable manner, even if the complaint is legitimate

While most condo corporations and managers will attempt to deescalate situations where individuals cross the line of acceptable conduct without commencing legal proceedings, there are situations where condo corporations will have no choice but to initiate legal action to put an end to behaviour that would be considered harassment. Condo corporations must remember that they have a duty under the Condo Act and the OHSA to do so.

When faced with such a situation, condo corporations will often first turn to s. 117 of the Condo Act. Historically, and before the amendments to the Condo Act which created s. 117(2), behaviour that was considered harassment was always treated as a safety issue and a court application was brought under what is now s. 117(1). However, with the implementation of s. 117(2) and the CAT’s expanded jurisdiction there is now a distinction between s. 117(1) safety concern claims and s. 117(2) nuisance claims.

The distinction between s. 117(1) and s. 117(2) has been discussed in many CAT cases, with the CAT making it very clear that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with harassment specifically or serious claims of misconduct that raises safety issues or psychological harm, as those claims fall under s. 117(1). The CAT has clearly stated that its jurisdiction is limited to behaviour that falls under the heading of nuisance, disturbance or annoyance under s. 117(2) and can only deal with harassment if the corporation has a rule that classifies harassment under those headings.

Despite this distinction, we are seeing cases before the CAT in which condo corporations are alleging “harassment” but characterizing the conduct as a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance in order to bring it within the CAT’s jurisdiction. This practice raises many questions: Why are they doing this, and what purpose does it serve? Are we serving those in the condo industry who live and work in these communities and are subjected to harassment if we classify the behaviour complained of as an annoyance, disturbance or nuisance instead of a safety concern warranting a court application? Are condo communities really benefiting by having these claims dealt with at the CAT instead of by the courts?

To find answers to these questions, a comparison of the results in two recent cases from the spring of 2025 proves helpful. After reviewing these cases, it is evident that we take harassment seriously and properly characterize harassing behaviour as a safety concern—especially when the situations involve “workers” under the OHSA.

We should not water down harassment by classifying it as a nuisance, annoyance or disruption just to fit it into the CAT’s jurisdiction. The terms are not synonymous, and harassment—by definition—is conduct that is vexatious, offensive, aggressive or intimidating.

The courts have recognized that harassment is serious and can cause harm to individuals. If we accept that harassment is serious misconduct that can cause injury, then we are engaging s. 117(1) and the obligations under OHSA. As such, the proper forum for harassment claims will always be the courts, not the CAT. By taking this approach, hopefully we can achieve consistent results like those obtained in TSCC 1644 v. Zhu, rather than the outcomes observed in TSCC 2510 v. Sharma.

Contrasting outcomes

In both cases, the conduct, although not identical, could be characterized as toxic, hostile and disruptive. In each case, the conduct complained of was directed against board members and those working at the condo property. However, the results of both cases stand in stark contrast, despite the fact that the behaviours in both were equally bad. In the CAT case (Sharma), the behaviour was so serious that it led to two condo managers resigning from their positions due to the ongoing harassment.

When looking at the outcomes of cases, one obvious difference is the cost consequences imposed on the individual who engaged in harassing behaviour. In the court case (Zhu), the offending individual paid more than $26,000 to cover the corporation’s costs to address the bad behaviour and obtain compliance. In the CAT case (Sharma), the offending owner was only required to pay the $200 filing fee paid by the condo corporation, leaving the other innocent owners to share the legal bill incurred.

From experience, we know that one of the biggest motivators for changing behaviour in condo communities is the financial impact one’s actions can have. The result in the CAT case does not encourage owners who behave badly to change their behaviour, as there were no serious financial consequences for the misconduct.

Another difference between the results in the two cases can be found in the orders that were made. In Zhu, the court ordered Zhu to refrain from communicating in person or verbally with any owner, tenant, guest, or customer of the board member he was harassing, and from coming within 10 feet of any board member while on the common elements.. He was also restricted from lingering or loitering in certain common areas. The owner acknowledged that if he failed to comply with the court’s orders, he could face an additional order to sell or permanently vacate the unit. The owner advised the court that he understood the consequences and he would comply.

In contrast, in Sharma, the CAT was reluctant to order that Sharma permanently cease all harassing, annoying or disturbing conduct. Instead, the CAT recommended that the board amend their bylaws to address the issues, despite finding that Sharma had violated the corporation’s rules and declaration.

The CAT’s order was simply that Sharma comply with the governing documents, which he is already required to do by statute. Again, the results of the cases send two very different messages regarding the consequences of equally bad behaviour. These mixed messages do not help condo communities manage inappropriate behaviours, nor do they provide reassurance to those who work in these communities that they will be protected from unacceptable behaviour.

While we cannot change the limits of the CAT’s jurisdiction to deal with unacceptable conduct, we can decide as an industry to treat harassment as a serious safety risk and bring the issue to the courts under s. 117(1). This would allow us to truly hold offenders financially responsible for their actions and impose real consequences for continued bad behaviour.

We can stop diluting the definition of harassment by making it synonymous with annoyances, nuisances and disruptions. Instead, we can should show our condo managers and board members—who are usually the brunt of the harassment—that we take this type of behaviour seriously and do not treat it in the same manner as we do smoking or noise complaints.

Harassment is not a nuisance, annoyance or disruption. It is a course of conduct that is offensive or intimidating and can cause harm or injury to an individual. As we move into 2026, let’s start being more consistent and treat harassment as a safety issue under s. 117(1) and not reduce its impact.

Maybe then this approach will lead to more outcomes like the Zhu case, which could serve as a deterrent to those contemplating harassing behaviour. If we don’t start treating harassment seriously, we cannot blame condo managers for wanting to leave the industry.

Sonja Hodis is a condominium lawyer as well as an independent arbitrator and mediator for condominium disputes. She advises condominium boards and owners on their rights and responsibilities under the Condominium Act, 1998 and other legislation that affects condominiums. She represents parties at all levels of court, various Tribunals and in mediation/arbitration proceedings. She also acts as independent mediator or arbitrator helping parties resolve disputes or rendering decisions when they can not. Sonja can be reached at (705) 737-4403, [email protected] or via her website at www.hodislaw.com.

This article is provided as an information service and is not intended to be a legal opinion. Readers are cautioned not to act on the information provided without seeking legal advice with respect to their specific unique circumstances. Sonja Hodis, 2025 All Rights Reserved.