Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the respondents breached their obligations under the Condominium Act and the corporation’s declaration by refusing access to their unit

• The extent to which the occupant’s behaviour interfered with the corporation’s ability to manage common property and ensure safety

• Legal authority of the corporation to enter a unit to address conditions likely to cause damage or injury

• The persistent denial of access despite multiple written requests and scheduled visits

• The relevance of occupant behaviour that posed a threat to staff and other residents

• Justification for awarding full indemnity costs against all respondents jointly and severally

Background and facts of the case

Peel Condominium Corporation No. 304 (PCC 304), the applicant, brought this unopposed application under section 134 of the Condominium Act to enforce its rights and obligations under the Act and its own Declaration. The respondents were Stella Goncza, her son Rick Goncza, and the Estate of Leonard Goncza, deceased, who owned unit #708 in the condominium. Rick lived in the unit as a caregiver and occupant. The issue arose after a water leak from unit #708 caused damage to the unit below, #608.

Despite numerous notices and attempts to schedule inspections and repairs, Rick repeatedly denied access to the unit and acted in a hostile and threatening manner toward property management staff, contractors, and other residents. His conduct included verbal abuse, unfounded accusations, and harassment, creating an unsafe and disruptive environment. The refusal to permit access persisted even after legal counsel intervened on behalf of the corporation. Meanwhile, the leak continued to cause property damage and posed a health risk to the residents of unit #608 due to mould.

Legal analysis and findings

The court found that the respondents were in breach of their statutory and contractual obligations under several provisions of the Condominium Act and the corporation’s Declaration. Specifically, the corporation had a right and duty to enter the unit to investigate and repair conditions that could damage the property or harm residents. The persistent refusal of access by Rick, combined with his offensive conduct, constituted a serious violation. The evidence provided by the property manager was uncontradicted and established the necessity of judicial intervention to ensure compliance.

Outcome and costs

The court granted an order compelling the respondents to provide access to the unit for necessary repairs and directing Rick to cease his inappropriate conduct toward staff and other residents. The court emphasized that appropriate behaviour is required to live cooperatively in a condominium community. It also awarded full indemnity costs of $17,108.12 to PCC 304, to be payable jointly and severally by all respondents. The court further ordered that these costs could be added to the common expenses for unit #708 under section 134(5) of the Act.