Not All Who Wear Capes Are Heroes – a Consideration of the Vigilante Approach to Addressing Individual Condominium Issues

Described as everything from an ecosystem to a fourth level of government, a condo community can be representative of society on a much larger scale. This is a brief examination of what happens when an individual facing an issue takes matters into their own hands…

There is this memorable story from the early 2000s about a condo President, so eager to ensure that enjoyment of the community’s playground was limited to only the building’s residents that he took it upon himself to approach children playing on the equipment to ask them where they lived… until the police showed up!

Hero or Villain?

Whenever an individual takes it upon themselves to champion their view of justice and step beyond their role and responsibilities, the question emerges whether their behaviour is helping or hindering; appropriate or going too far?

Consider a situation where a condominium resident feels someone is violating community rules. They take steps beyond tattling and channel their inner-Batman to stake out, gather evidence, interrogate, and serve up someone else for punishment.

It happens all the time in condos, but does it achieve the desired result? Is this the right thing to do?

There is little question that this type of behaviour goes beyond the usual recommendation of reporting a concern, logging one’s own disturbances if they persist… also, the neighbourly advice to mind your own business.

To be clear, the actions of focus surround one without appropriate authority taking it upon themselves to take the law into their own hands. Pursuing their own notion of right and wrong, how things should be or how certain processes should be structured. These individuals overstep their role in pursuit of achieving their own vision of fairness.

Lessons from Tribunal Decisions

There are several Condominium Authority Tribunal decisions citing folks attempting to impose their own standard of how to go about things like record keeping or enforcing governing documents. The Tribunal has confirmed that boards have the freedom to decide how they do this. That the standard to be met is not set by an individual with beef. Please don’t get me wrong, condominium boards indeed must keep records and take reasonable steps to address issues; it is simply up to them to decide how exactly to go about this.

In Dhuruvasangary v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1532 a unit owner challenged how the condominium board was enforcing parking rules. They offered photographs they had taken over a span of seven years of cars parked on the wrong side of the street. Ultimately, the Tribunal confirmed that the condo had an obligation to enforce parking rules, but not an obligation to take the specific enforcement steps the Applicant desired.

There are many other tribunal decisions along these lines. Individuals seeking to hold others to standards they set, without having the authority to set the standards they put forth. The dynamic presents across the spectrum of conflict party dynamics in the condominium space.

The Big Picture

In considering the time and effort involved when individual board members or owners take on a vigilante role, it is important to note that third-party corroboration offers stronger evidence. More can be accomplished with less time and effort by reporting concerns to the appropriate authorities. In the condominium context, this is typically management and the board.

Back in 2013, a popular case helped Lionel Richie’s 1986 hit Dancing on the Ceiling make a comeback in condo circles. Dyke v. Metropolitan Toronto Condo. Corp. No. 972 featured a residential condo owner-occupant suffering as the neighbour in the unit above ran a dance studio out of their apartment. As the court found that the condominium unfairly disregarded the owner’s interests, it awarded $40,325.78 in special damages and $19,500.00 in costs in favour of the owner. The Bank of Canada’s inflation calculator suggests this monetary award totals $80,140.30 in today’s dollars.

Make no mistake, the case did not turn on the owner’s vigilante efforts, but instead on the behaviour of concern being reported to the condominium board and management without appropriate action being taken in response. The financial consequence was due to the appropriate authority failing to do its job, not someone stepping into the authority role in an act of heroism.

For the aspiring vigilante, the case law confirms that involving the appropriate authorities in addressing your issue better positions you – even though it may not result in the precise outcome you seek. For the appropriate authorities, it is better to work with someone experiencing an issue, as the case law confirms that it is a bad look to be seen as unresponsive. The lesson here is that it is better to work together than go it alone.