In York Region Condominium Corporation No. 570 v. Edery (“Edery”),[1] the Ontario Superior Court prohibited a daughter from visiting or occupying a condominium owned by her elderly mother pursuant to the Condominium Act.[2]

Facts

The underlying application in Edery was brought by York Region Condominium Corporation No. 770 (“YRCC”). YRCC is a not-for-profit condominium corporation created under the Condominium Act.[3]

Edery concerned condo owner Kathryn Edery (“Kathyrn”), an elderly woman with difficulties managing her property and personal care. Kathryn has three children, namely: Esther Ohayon (“Esther”), Joyce Kadoch (“Joyce”) and Malka Renee Edery (“Renee”).[4]

Kathryn has Alzheimer’s disease. Her family doctor found she was incapable of managing her property and personal care and opined that it was necessary for her affairs to be managed by others. Prior to being found incapable, in or around July 2023, Kathyrn granted Powers of Attorney for Property and Personal Care appointing Esther and Joyce as her attorneys.[5]

In 2020, Kathryn moved into YRCC. In or around October 2023, Renee moved from Israel to Canada and into Kathyrn’s condominium. YRCC stated that it felt obliged to bring their application given “Renee’s harassing, threatening, and intimidating behaviour”.[6] This behaviour included non-compliance with the condominium’s by-laws, as well as harassment of building staff. Esther and Joyce were named as respondents given they acted as Kathryn’s Attorneys.[7]

Following the commencement of YRCC’s application in late 2024, the court was advised that Kathryn had granted new Powers of Attorney in favour of Renee in February 2025 (the “2025 POAs”). The Honourable Justice S.E. Fraser expressed concern with Kathryn’s capacity to grant new Powers of Attorney and ordered the application materials to be served on the Public Guardian and Trustee.[8]

Issues

The three key issues for Justice Fraser in Edery were as follows:

1. Could the matter proceed in the face of competing Powers of Attorney?
2. What authority did the court have to bar Renee from occupying Kathryn’s property or attending at YRCC?
3. Was a compliance Order necessary?

Issue 1: Competing Powers of Attorney

Justice Fraser found that the 2025 POAs did not displace Esther and Joyce’s role as litigation guardians for Kathryn in respect of YRCC’s application. Her Honour noted that there was no motion to displace them as litigation guardians and that Renee was adverse in interest to Kathryn, and therefore not suitable to act in that capacity.[9]

YRCC correctly argued that an attorney for property acting for the grantor, has the power to do anything that the owner herself could do if capable, except make a will.[10]  including require Ms. Edery to leave the unit. Accordingly, it followed that Esther and Joyce could require Renee to leave the condominium unit.[11]

Issue 2: Court authority to make Order

Justice Fraser began with an overview of the core provisions of the Condominium Act.

Subsection 17(2) of the Condominium Act places upon the corporation a duty to control, manage and administer the common elements and the assets of the corporation. Subsection 17(3) provides that:

The corporation has a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the owners, the occupiers of units, the lessees of the common elements and the agents and employees of the corporation comply with this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules.[12]

Section 117 of the Condominium Act concerns public nuisances and prohibited conduct or disruptions:

(1) No person shall, through an act or omission, cause a condition to exist or an activity to take place in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation if the condition or the activity, as the case may be, is likely to damage the property or the assets or to cause an injury or an illness to an individual.

(2)  No person shall carry on an activity or permit an activity to be carried on in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation if the activity results in the creation of or continuation of,

(a) any unreasonable noise that is a nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation; or

(b) any other prescribed nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation.[13]

Section 119 of the Condominium Act provides that all owners and occupiers are required to comply with the Act, a declaration by a condominium corporation, its by-laws and rules.[14]

Case law in Ontario demonstrates that where there is found to be a breach of section 117, the Court has ordered the sale of the unit, ordered the termination of a tenancy, and granted other relief.[15]

Section 134 of the Condominium Act specifically concerns enforcement and provides that:

Subject to subsection (2), an owner, an occupier of a proposed unit, a corporation, a declarant, a lessor of a leasehold condominium corporation or a mortgagee of a unit may make an application to the Superior Court of Justice for an order enforcing compliance with any provision of this Act, the declaration, the by-laws, the rules or an agreement between two or more corporations for the mutual use, provision or maintenance or the cost-sharing of facilities or services of any of the parties to the agreement.[16]

Issue 3: Necessity of an Order

The court found the record amply demonstrated Renee’s harassing conduct which contravened the Condominium Act, as well as the declarations and by-laws of YRCC. This conduct included a campaign of unsubstantiated allegations made towards YRCC employee, Karen Rubin, including “yelling and stalking behaviour in the common elements of the condominium” as well as photographing her.[17]

The court found the record also strongly demonstrated evidence of elder abuse perpetrated by Renee against her mother, which included:

• Impersonation of Kathryn, including putting herself out as her in emails;
• Relegating Kathryn to a smaller secondary bedroom in her own unit, with Renee using the larger bedroom;
• Isolated and sequestering Kathryn from the rest of her family;
• Incidents of verbal abuse; and
• Placing cameras in the condo unit, including in the bedroom.[18]

Renee denied any wrongdoing towards Kathryn and stated that her mother wanted her to be there. Despite several police attendances at the property, no further steps were taken.[19]

Disposition

Justice Fraser decided in favour of YRCC in their application. Given the foregoing evidence of abuse and misconduct, Her Honour made the following Orders:

1. the Respondent, Malka Renee Edery, who is, from time to time, an occupant of Unit 101 (as further defined herein) owned by the Respondent, Kathryn Edery, immediately cease and desist from:

i) Engaging in threatening, harassing, intimidating, inappropriate, disturbing, dangerous, and/or illegal conduct against YRCC 570’s Property Management, Board of Directors, residents, owners, visitors, employees, contractors, and/or staff on YRCC 570’s property, including the common elements and/or within any unit;

ii) Interfering and/or tampering with YRCC 570’s common element property or otherwise engaging in conduct that occasions a breach of the Ontario Fire Code;

iii) Impersonating the Respondent, Kathryn Edery, the owner of the Unit (as further defined herein) by issuing various communications to YRCC 570’s Board of Directors and/or Property Management from Kathryn Edery’s personal email address containing unsubstantiated allegations regarding the affairs of the Applicant, including inappropriate, harassing, and disturbing statements considered to be defamatory to YRCC 570’s Property Manager;

iv) Making repeated frivolous and/or vexatious complaints to YRCC 570’s Board of Directors, Property Management, and/or other third parties containing false and/or fabricated allegations regarding the affairs of YRCC 570 and its Property Manager; and

v) Breaching the Act or the Governing Documents of YRCC 570 by engaging in any further harassing, intimidating, inappropriate, disturbing, and/or illegal conduct on the common elements or within any unit at YRCC 570,

2. the Respondent, Malka Renee Edery, is permanently prohibited from occupying or visiting the Unit (as further defined herein), attending on YRCC 570’s common elements, or visiting any other unit at YRCC 570;

3. in the event that any of the Respondents named herein breach any term of any Order granted by this Honourable Court, YRCC 570 may apply to this Court on notice in accordance with the Rules and be granted a further Order forcing the sale of the Unit;

4. An Order that the Sheriff, or any legal enforcement officer of the Province of Ontario, be directed to perform all duties reasonably necessary to ensure that effect is given to any Order granted by this Honourable Court.[20]

Concluding Comments

The court did not engage in a discussion of the validity of Kathryn’s Powers of Attorney but nonetheless was able to protect Kathyrn, her property and ensure access by her supportive family and friends. These are issues that are often dealt with in Ontario under the Substitute Decisions Act.

As such, Edery is a rather unique decision for its utilisation of the Condominium Act to deal with issues of abuse and mistreatment of a vulnerable older adult.

—

[1] York Region Condominium Corporation No. 570 v. Edery, 2025 ONSC 2166 (CanLII) (“Edery”).

[2] Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. c 19 (“Condominium Act”).

[3] Edery at para 3.

[4] Edery at para 7.

[5] Edery at para 6.

[6] Edery at para 9.

[7] Edery at para 9.

[8] Edery at para 16.

[9] Edery at paras 19 – 21.

[10] Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c.30, ss. 31, 32 and 59(2).

[11] Edery at para 10.

[12] Condominium Act at 17(3).

[13] Condominium Act at section 117.

[14] Condominium Act at section 119.

[15] See: Metropolitan Condominium Corporation No. 747 v. Korolekh, 2010 ONSC 4448, at para. 65; York Condominium Corporation No. 82 v. Singh, 2013 ONSC 2066, at paras. 41-44; Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 335 v. Lagacé, [2004] O.J. No. 1480, at paras. 18-20; York Condominium No. 187 v. Sandhu, 2019 ONSC 4779, at para. 41; Doherty v. Doherty, 2023 ONSC 1536, at para. 68.

[16] Condominium Act at section 134.

[17] Edery at para 35.

[18] Edery at paras 39 – 43.

[19] Edery at paras 44 – 45.

[20] Edery at para 48.