17/06/2025– Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 91 published on 01/09/2025
Owner’s complaints and related actions constituted harassment
The condominium corporation sought a compliance order after Mr. Leuzzi’s complaints about second-hand smoke escalated into a pattern of harassing conduct, including excessive communications, improper allegations and threats.
The court found that this behaviour breached sections 117 and 119 of the Condominium Act and granted a compliance order restricting Mr. Leuzzi’s communications and prohibiting harassment. The Court said:
Over the next ten months, Mr. Leuzzi sent PCC 96’s managers, lawyers or agents at least 119 email messages, and occasionally several in one day, to demand information and immediate answers while threatening to complain to regulators if his demands were not met. From the uncontradicted evidence, it is clear that Mr. Leuzzi unleashed a volume of inquiries that PCC 96 and its agents could not reasonably have answered within the timeframes as demanded. He further inflamed the situation by stating that police were investigating PCC 96’s directors, managers and lawyers, and by filing a police report about a potential fraud arising form the incorrect address in the pre-authorized payment form only to later concede that he was note aware of any losses from the improper form that had been inadvertently prepared as PCC 96 explained in its uncontradicted evidence on this point. Mr. Leuzzi also threatened to call police (i.e., due to an infringement of his rights as a unit owner) after PCC 96 posted a notice from its swimming pool services provider to limit the number of people that could use the pool when no lifeguard was on duty. In addition, he threatened on multiple occasions to make complaints to the CMRAO and to the Law Society, respectively. Furthermore, Mr. Leuzzi corresponded with PCC 96’s auditor to raise allegations of financial improprieties that were later determined to be unfounded. Although he refused to disclose these communications, the auditor reported that it had been necessary to undertake a significant investigation into very serious allegations that PCC 96 had paid invoices for work not performed. PCC 96 acknowledges that three of Mr. Leuzzi’s complaints to CMRAO were valid (i.e., the improper use of an industry designation, the incorrect pre-authorized payment form address that he also reported to police, and a failure to disclose the receipt of cash to the auditor), but as he refused to disclose those complaints, the corporation could not meaningfully understand or deal with his concerns. Taking everything into account, I find that Mr. Leuzzi engaged in a pattern of behaviour that was not done in good faith but for an ulterior purpose to intimidate or harass the corporation’s directors, management or agents, respectively.
Mr. Leuzzi’s cross-application for an oppression remedy was dismissed, as the corporation had acted reasonably and in good faith.
Peel Condominium Corporation No. 96 v. Leuzzi, 2025 ONSC 3492- Director’s obligation