02/09/2025– Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 91 published on 01/09/2025
Tribunal determines that owner’s posting did not constitute a nuisance, annoyance or disruption
The Corporation alleged that the owner’s LinkedIn posts targeting residents, directors, and lawyers constituted harassment. The Tribunal held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider harassment rules but concluded that the posts, while annoying, did not constitute a nuisance, annoyance or disruption for purposes of the Condominium Act. The application was dismissed with no costs.
The Tribunal said:
Upon consideration of the evidence and submissions, I have determined that some allegations made by the Applicant are outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in particular those that address the Respondent’s conduct towards the Applicant’s legal representatives. As for the remaining allegations that the Respondent’s conduct toward other residents and board members and manager breached Rule 17 and amounts to harassment, I have determined that Rule 17 is broad in scope and encompasses a wide range of behaviours, some of which may considered to be a legal nuisance, annoyance or disruption.
Having determined that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over parts of this dispute, based on the evidence and submissions before me, I find that the conduct at issue, i.e. the making of online posts tagging members of the Applicant’s condominium community and various agents, cannot be considered a nuisance, as it does not meet the legal requirement that the conduct deal with the quiet enjoyment of the property. Additionally, while I accept that the conduct has been annoying and frustrating to those who have been the subject of it, I find it also does not meet the threshold that would qualify it as an annoyance or disruption at law.
…
I am not persuaded by the evidence before me that the conduct alleged is part of a persistent and ongoing course of intrusive and troubling behaviour over a period that amounts to unreasonable inference. Rather, what it appears to demonstrate, is that the Respondent is choosing to use LinkedIn to air his grievances with the corporation and its various agents as those grievances arise. It may indeed be an inappropriate way to do so, but I am not convinced by the number and frequency of the posts that it amounts to conduct that is an annoyance in law.
…
I further remind the Respondent that while the evidence, at this time, does not support a finding of nuisance, annoyance or disruption, if such conduct were to continue over a prolonged period of time, intensify or otherwise change in its character, it could become such. This decision is based only in the conduct and evidence of that conduct to date.
Halton Condominium Corporation No. 115 v. Holloway, 2025 ONCAT 149- Online Groups