In the recent case of Merrifield v. Canada (Attorney General), the Plaintiff asserted claims for harassment and bullying allegedly suffered as an employee of the RCMP. The Ontario Court of Appeal ultimately held that there is no general tort of harassment in Ontario. Claimants who allegedly suffer such harm must instead consider whether or not their claims fall within the (narrower) tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering. Continue reading “Harassment in the Condominium Setting”
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal recently addressed issues relating to gender expression and gender inclusivity in the case of Andrews v. Great Gulf. Continue reading “Gender Inclusivity”
As many of our readers already know, there is no battle between condominium law and human rights law. Provincial human rights codes take priority (almost) every time. This means that, subject only to undue hardship, condominium corporations must make a timely effort to accommodate those residents who require an accommodation for human rights reasons. Continue reading “Coming to a Compromise: Condominiums, Cannabis, and Human Rights”
In the recent case of Kovaleva v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation 1000, the former President of the condominium corporation had made a claim to the Human Rights Tribunal in which she alleged that she had been removed (by the Board) from the office of the President and as a signing officer based on prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code. She claimed that the actions of the Board had been discriminatory. Continue reading “Some Human Rights News for Condominium Corporations”
A recent decision by the Human Rights Tribunal, Luk v. York Condominium Corporation No. 382, recognizes that it can take some time for a condominium board to implement a policy to investigate complaints about owners.
In this case, five months was considered a reasonable timeframe for the board to implement the policy, because the Condominium Corporation addressed complaints while the policy was being prepared.
The dispute began with a settlement agreed to by the parties, under which the Condominium Corporation was required to institute a policy “pursuant to which it would investigate any complaints that owners or residents have violated any of the condominium’s rules, and if substantiated, take what it deems to be appropriate action in accordance with the Human Rights Code, the Condominium Act and any other applicable statutes or law.” No deadline for doing so was set in the settlement.
The complainant brought a further application in the Human Rights Tribunal (less than two months after the minutes of settlement were signed) that the Condominium Corporation had breached the minutes of settlement by failing to implement the policy in a reasonable period of time.
The policy was adopted five months after the minutes of settlement were implemented.
The Tribunal was sympathetic to the owner’s position that, because of verbal threats experienced by some residents, the Condominium should have adopted the policy on an urgent basis. However, the Tribunal accepted the Condominium’s position that it took residents’ complaints seriously and acted on them, thus mitigating the need to adopt the policy urgently.
The Tribunal found that the Board adopted and implemented the policy within a reasonable timeframe.
The Tribunal also stated that the Condominium was diligent in developing its policy, especially given the election of a new Board during that period, the fact that the Board only meets monthly, and also that the process included a review by legal counsel.
This decision recognizes that the process of a Board of Directors in managing the affairs of the Condominium Corporation can often take time, and instantaneous results should not be expected.