A Toronto condominium community recently endured a tenant from hell. In MTCC 1025 v. Hui, residents, security staff and contractors were subject to a tenant’s threatening and disturbing behaviour, including:
- Threatening a security guard with a knife;
- Exposing himself and performing lewd acts in the common elements of the condominium building;
- Attempting to force his way into a resident’s car and a contractor’s van;
- Defacing unit doors and nearby walls;
- Setting up a chair and blocking the entrance of the building, not allowing residents to enter (so they had to enter via the loading dock), and the list goes on.
The owner of the unit cooperated with the corporation from the outset. She delivered an eviction notice to the tenant and applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board for an urgent hearing, but the request for an expedited hearing was denied. The corporation brought an application for a compliance order against the tenant and owner. At some point in the interim, the tenant was arrested and therefore no longer on site.
The court had no trouble granting a compliance order against the tenant for breaching section 117 of the Condo Act (which prohibits any dangerous activity that is likely to damage property or cause injury), the corporation’s declaration, rules and the Occupational Health and Safety Act when misconduct was levelled at staff.
But who was responsible for the corporation’s costs of the application?