Disruptive owners

There are times when an owner, or a group of owners, are so determined to have their way they become make governing the condo community almost impossible. They will do all they can to prevent the existing board from being able to function.

I am not talking about owners having normal disagreements about who should be elected to the board, or owners who have reason to believe their condo is poorly managed, or owners who want lower condo fees; all of that can and should be discussed, argued and voted on as part of a healthy democratic process.

I am talking about individuals who put their personal interests ahead of the interests of the majority.

Sometimes they hound the manager, the directors, the superintendent and the cleaners. They spread rumours and defame all that oppose them. When all else fails, they will seek redress outside the corporation by appealing to the city building inspectors, the Human Rights Tribunal or to the courts.

Here is a case where a small group of owners, in my opinion, went too far in their attempts to gain control of the board.

Kamal v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 51
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
File Numbers:   2013-15958-I; 2013-15959-I; 2013-16113-I 

Peel Condominium Corporation No. 51 had a troubled history. In 2010, the board scheduled an AGM, during a week day, within the month of Ramadan. This would be their first AGM since 2007.

This was an urgent meeting because the previous management had failed to maintain and/or refused to provide any of the records PCC #51 needed in order to have an audit done. The auditor who had audited the accounts for the 2007 AGM had withdrawn his report and resigned, claiming that he had been pressured by the previous Board to engage in “window-dressing”.

It took until 2009 to collect the records required to have audited financial statements for 2007 and 2008 that could be presented to the owners at the 2010 AGM.

One of the candidates for the 2010 AGM demanded that the meeting be re-scheduled for a Saturday or Sunday. The board believed that this was because a candidate did not have enough proxies to get elected and he was stalling in order to gain more time.

The board held the meeting on the scheduled date but had to cancel the meeting because a group of unit owners, including the candidate for a director's position, were shouting and demanding that it be rescheduled to a Saturday or Sunday. The name cards that had been set out on tables for the meeting had been thrown on the floor.

There was so much disruption that the Board determined that it could not go ahead with the meeting, and would have to reschedule it to another date.

The manager was shocked by the screaming and behaviour of some unit owners at what was to have been his first AGM since becoming PCC #51's property manager.

When they could not get their way, they launched a Human Rights complaint against the condo which failed.

contents  chapter  previous  next