By: Megan Alexander

As counsel for the Applicant, Middlesex Condominium Corporation No. 79 (the “Corporation”) in this Condominium Authority Tribunal (“CAT”) application, I welcome their recent ruling in Middlesex Condominium Corporation No. 79 v. Wuest.

This decision is more than a legal outcome, it is an important reaffirmation of the standards that keep Ontario condominium communities safe, respectful, and livable.

Background Information

For nearly nine months, the Corporation grappled with increasingly disruptive and alarming conduct from a unit owner, Wuest (the “Respondent”). Owners were subjected to persistent noise, threatening outbursts, and harassment in common areas. Despite multiple written notices (including legal), verbal warnings, and even the imposition of a peace bond, the behaviour escalated rather than subsided.

The Corporation’s evidence showed a troubling pattern of misconduct. The evidence as provided by the Corporation included more than a dozen documented incidents, several police interventions, and video recordings depicting profanity-laced tirades and threats directed at other owners.

The Issues

The Tribunal’s task was to determine whether:

1)      The Respondent breached s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) by creating unreasonable noise;

2)      The Respondent violated Rules 14 and 49 of the Corporation’s governing documents, which prohibit nuisance and harassment; and,

3)      A compliance order and/or cost recovery were warranted given the sustained pattern of misconduct.

The CAT’s Findings Following Phase Three “Adjudication” of the Litigation Process

Vice-Chair Keegan Ferreira (the “Adjudicator”) found unequivocally that the Respondent’s conduct breached the Act and the Corporation’s Rules. The decision confirmed the following:

1)      A nuisance was created in violation of s. 117(2);

2)      Rule 14, which prohibits noise disturbing others, was breached;

3)      Rule 49, which prohibits harassment, was also breached; and,

4)      A compliance order AND reasonable costs were warranted to the Corporation.

The CAT ordered immediate compliance by the Respondent and required the Respondent to pay $1,636.24 in damages and $10,150 in costs, which included the CAT’s fees. In explaining why cost recovery was appropriate, the Adjudicator stated, in the decision:

“An order for full indemnification… would ensure that the consequences of the Respondent’s unreasonable behavior is not imposed on the other innocent unit owners.”

Significance of this Decision:

1)     Timely Action and Strong Documentation are Fundamental for Corporations

This case underscores how vital it is for condo boards (“Boards”) to respond promptly to complaints/incidents and maintain thorough records. The Adjudicator specifically acknowledged the Corporation’s diligence, noting:

“The made significant efforts to address the Respondent’s conduct and to get him to comply voluntarily before commencing this application.”

The Corporation sent letters to the Respondent in December 2024, as well as, January and February 2025 each warning of ongoing breaches, citing the Rules; and, emphasizing potential consequences including potential litigation at the CAT. These notices were followed by a legal notice in March 2025, prior to filing the application.

These steps demonstrated a measured, fair, and consistent approach, ultimately supporting the substantial cost award.

2)     Clear Rules Provide Clear Authority to Corporations

The Corporation’s Rules 14 and 49 were instrumental in establishing the breaches. The Adjudicator quoted the Rules directly, emphasizing their clarity and purpose:

“Occupants shall not create or permit the creation or continuation of any noise… which… may or does disturb the comfort or quiet enjoyment of the property.” Rule 14

“No Owner shall engage in conduct that would constitute harassment.” Rule 49

When a Corporation’s Rules are precise and well-communicated, Boards have the necessary authority to intervene and enforce swiftly when there is a clear and ongoing violation of the Corporation’s governing documents.

3)     Consistency Is Key to Community Protection

The CAT agreed with the Corporation’s position that there were clear parallels to the Peel Condominium Corporation No. 96 v. Psofimis, 2021 ONCAT 48 (“Psofimis”) decision, noting that persistent, clear warnings, paired with ongoing non-compliance by the Respondent, support strong enforcement action, as evidenced in this application.

As the Adjudicator observed in the decision:

“There were many opportunities for the Respondent to correct their behavior… warned the Respondent of the potential consequences.”

Consistent enforcement not only establishes fairness but also prevents misconduct from becoming normalized within the community.

4)     Harassment Is Never Acceptable (period).

This decision, among a handful of others from the CAT which are cited in the decision, reinforces that harassment in condominium communities is not merely unpleasant, it is unacceptable and actionable, if you ensure you are pairing it with a breach of the governing documents and substantiated evidence to support your position.

Commenting on the Respondent’s threatening statements, the Adjudicator wrote in this decision:

“The statements are outrageous, unacceptable, and alarming.” .

Harassment has no place in a shared residential environment, and the CAT has once again confirmed that condominium corporations are empowered and have a duty to intervene.

And,

5)     Costs Must Fall on the Wrongdoer

Finally, the CAT reiterated that innocent unit owners should not bear the financial burden of an individual’s misconduct.  As stated in the decision:

“The consequences of the Respondent’s unreasonable behavior is not imposed on the other innocent unit owners.”

While the Corporation sought $14,208.90 in legal costs, the Tribunal found $10,150 to be reasonable and proportionate. Therefore, reinforcing the principle that enforcement costs should follow the offending party, following litigation.

In Conclusion

This decision provides a clear and welcome precedent for Boards, owners and legal representatives alike.

Persistent nuisance and harassment are incompatible with condominium living, and Ontario law provides mechanisms to address them.

In order to have the best opportunity for success in CAT cases, like MCC 79 v Wuest, it is important to remember that Boards must act promptly, reasonably, enforce (clear) rules consistently, substantiate breaches and document same; and of course, have strong indemnification provisions to seek legal costs.

Megan A. Alexander was counsel for the Corporation in this CAT application.

Ms. Alexander is a licensed paralegal who works within the Commercial Litigation and Multi-Residential Housing Groups at Cohen Highley LLP in London, Kitchener, Stratford, Strathroy and Windsor. Ms. Alexander’s main areas of practice is within the Ontario Small Claims Court (including enforcement) and the Condominium Authority Tribunal (“CAT”).

If you have questions about this or CAT proceedings, we encourage you to reach out to Megan Alexander.