Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Condominium board’s authority to regulate alterations to common elements, including a video doorbell, under s. 98 of the Condominium Act, 1998, and to require an indemnity agreement as a condition of approval.
• Compliance with the condominium corporation’s statutory right of entry under s. 19 of the Act to inspect an in-unit washer and dryer installation after concerns were raised about building-wide in-suite laundry.
• Weight and sufficiency of conflicting affidavit evidence and inconclusive video recordings regarding alleged harassment and threats between unit owners, the superintendent, and board members.
• Procedural choice to resolve unresolved harassment and related claims by converting the balance of the application into an action requiring viva voce evidence under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Determination of appropriate full-indemnity costs in favour of a condominium corporation for the portions of the application that were successfully decided.
• Ongoing impact of partially resolved statutory claims under ss. 117 and 119 of the Act, which remain to be determined together with the harassment allegations in the converted action.

Background and facts of the dispute

Niagara South Condominium Corporation No. 12 is the condominium corporation for a mid-rise residential building of approximately 100 units. Marianne and Leroy Locke are the owners and occupants of unit 409 on the fourth floor, having taken up residence around August 2023. The relationship between the Lockes and the condominium corporation deteriorated over time, leading to a multi-issue application before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The application focused on several alleged breaches of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the Act) and of the corporation’s rights as manager of the common elements. Central to the dispute were: (1) the Lockes’ installation of a video doorbell on the unit door, which forms part of the common element hallway entrance; (2) the installation of an in-suite washer and dryer; and (3) a series of confrontations involving the Lockes, the building superintendent, board members and others, which each side characterized as harassment by the other. The condominium corporation sought declarations that the owners had breached ss. 19, 98, 117 and 119 of the Act, as well as orders compelling access to the unit for inspection, requiring execution of an indemnity agreement for the video doorbell, and restraining alleged harassment and threatening conduct. The matter proceeded as an application, but ultimately only some parts were decided on the written and recorded evidence filed on the motion. The balance was converted to an action to permit full testimonial evidence at a later stage.

Video doorbell and alterations to common elements

The first major issue involved a video doorbell installed by the Lockes in the fall of 2023 on the exterior of their unit door, which is part of the common elements of the condominium. Section 98 of the Act requires that any addition, alteration or improvement to the common elements by a unit owner must be approved by the condominium board. Marianne Locke acknowledged in her affidavit that no formal advance permission was obtained from the board before installation. According to her evidence, the then-superintendent, Rick Stevenson, and the board president, Beverly Eldridge, inspected the doorbell shortly after installation and told the Lockes it was approved. However, there was no evidence that the board as a whole considered or approved the alteration at that time. The video doorbells (including another one elsewhere in the building) came to the board’s attention formally at a meeting in January 2025. At that meeting, the board decided the doorbells were to be removed and, in February 2025, a letter was sent to the Lockes requiring removal. After further consideration, the board softened its position and resolved to allow the Lockes to keep the video doorbell if they entered into an indemnity agreement. The applicant’s counsel sent a letter dated June 19, 2025 outlining the general terms of the proposed indemnity agreement, but the Lockes refused to sign any such agreement. The court held that s. 98 of the Act contemplates that a condominium board may approve alterations to common elements on conditions, including the requirement that an owner enter into an indemnity agreement. On this basis, the judge found that the board had acted within its statutory authority in insisting on an indemnity agreement as a condition of permitting the video doorbell to remain. The refusal by the Lockes to execute any indemnity agreement was therefore found to be a breach of s. 98. As a remedy, the court ordered the respondents to enter into an indemnity agreement incorporating the general terms described in the June 19, 2025 letter. The parties were given 30 days to negotiate the precise form of the agreement, with liberty to apply to the court for directions on wording if they could not agree.

In-suite washer and dryer and right of entry

The second issue concerned the installation of an in-unit washer and dryer. The court found that the appliances were installed by the Lockes around September 2023. Again, Marianne Locke asserted that Stevenson and Eldridge verbally approved the installation, but, as with the doorbell, the matter did not go to the board for formal approval at that time. In February 2025, the then-superintendent, Audie Sanford, attended the unit at the owners’ request to address an electrical concern and observed the in-suite washer and dryer. The presence of in-unit laundry installations across the building raised concerns for the board, particularly in relation to building infrastructure and risk, and the issue was discussed at a board meeting in March 2025. The board requested access to unit 409 to inspect the installation, but the Lockes refused entry. Section 19 of the Act clearly provides a right for representatives of a condominium corporation, on reasonable notice, to enter a unit to conduct an inspection. The refusal to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting the washer and dryer was found to be a breach of s. 19. During oral submissions, the respondents indicated that they were now willing to permit an inspection on reasonable notice. The court accordingly ordered that the condominium corporation and its retained professionals may enter the unit on reasonable notice to inspect the installation. However, the court declined to grant the further relief sought at this stage—that the corporation be authorized to remove the washer and dryer if the inspection shows an improper installation—finding that such an order would be premature without first knowing the inspection results.

Allegations of harassment and threats

The third theme in the application involved competing allegations of harassment and threatening conduct. The condominium corporation presented affidavit evidence that, beginning in July 2025, there were a series of confrontations between the Lockes and Sanford and certain board members. Sanford deposed that there were at least three verbal confrontations, including one in which he was confronted by Leroy Locke, who allegedly yelled at him and threatened to do so much damage that Sanford would not be able to walk. Another incident involved Leroy taking pictures of Sanford’s licence plate, saying he would find out where Sanford shopped and that he would “see me there”. Affidavit evidence from Eldridge and property manager Anna Suters described alleged threats in September 2025, including an incident where Leroy served Eldridge with a small claims court claim commenced by the Lockes while videotaping her and screaming obscenities. In contrast, Marianne Locke’s affidavit portrayed Marianne and Leroy as the victims of harassment by Eldridge, Sanford and other board members. She described verbal abuse directed at her by Sanford and expressed her belief that Eldridge had contacted police and accused her of stealing a large box of cable wire. Both sides also submitted several videos from surveillance cameras, the video doorbell and cell phones. After reviewing this material, the court found that most of the video merely showed verbal conflict without clearly revealing who was threatening whom or the content of the exchanges. The affidavits were directly contradictory and the recordings were inconclusive. In these circumstances, the court concluded that it was not possible to make reliable findings of fact about the alleged harassment, threats, or any breach of ss. 117 or 119 of the Act on the basis of the existing paper and video record alone.

Procedural outcome and conversion to an action

Given the evidentiary conflict, the judge determined that any remaining issues concerning harassment, threats and related statutory claims under ss. 117 and 119 would require viva voce evidence from the participants. To facilitate that, the court converted the unresolved portion of the application into an action. The order directed that, if the condominium corporation wished to proceed with those aspects, it must serve and file a statement of claim within 20 days, after which the Lockes would have 20 days from service to deliver a statement of defence. From there, the matter would continue under the Rules of Civil Procedure like any other civil action, allowing for examinations, a trial and live testimony to resolve the sharply contested factual disputes. Thus, the decision on motion is a partial resolution: it definitively addresses the video doorbell and in-suite laundry issues, while sending the harassment-related claims to a fuller, trial-type process.

Findings on statutory breaches and costs

In its concluding orders and declarations, the court held that the Lockes breached s. 19 of the Act by refusing access for inspection of the washer and dryer installation, and breached s. 98 by refusing to enter into a reasonable indemnity agreement for their video doorbell installation on the common element door. The court ordered them to negotiate and sign an indemnity agreement reflecting the general terms set out in counsel’s June 19, 2025 letter, with recourse back to the court if the exact language could not be agreed. It also ordered that the condominium corporation and its professionals be permitted to enter unit 409 on reasonable notice to inspect the washer and dryer. For the balance of issues, the proceeding was converted to an action as outlined above. On costs, the court recognized that the applicant condominium corporation was the successful party on the issues decided and, as a condominium corporation, was entitled to costs on a full indemnity basis for those portions of the application. However, because the applicant’s bill of costs covered all matters in the application, including those not yet resolved, the judge limited the costs award to the parts actually decided: the prior ruling that the application was not barred by s. 132 or s. 134, and the determinations under ss. 19 and 98. After reviewing the bill, the court fixed full-indemnity costs for those matters at $10,000 all-inclusive, payable by the respondents within 90 days. In practical terms, the successful party at this stage is Niagara South Condominium Corporation No. 12, which obtained orders enforcing its statutory rights and a total monetary award of $10,000 in costs against the unit owners, with any further monetary consequences to be determined later in the action if the remaining claims proceed.