Condo Stories Episode 4: Tales of Chaos, Comedy, and Compliance

The Allergic Reaction in Unit 401

It was a quiet December afternoon at Condoland —until Unit 401 decided to spice things up with an unplanned medical drama. At precisely 3:02 PM on December 23, 2018, security’s routine was rudely interrupted by a frantic call: someone in Unit 401 was having an allergic reaction, and paramedics were en route.

Now, when security hears "allergic reaction," it could mean anything from a mild case of the sneezes to a full-blown my-throat-is-closing-send-help situation. By the time they sprinted (or power-walked with authority) to the unit, EMS was already on the scene, treating the resident. The cause? A mystery. A rogue peanut? A shellfish slip-up? The eternal betrayal of "may contain traces of" fine print? We may never know.

As security stood by like a well-trained SWAT team for medical emergencies, they ensured that paramedics had full access to the building and elevators—because let’s face it, no one wants to be the condo corporation that slows down a 911 response. Thankfully, in this case, everything ran smoothly, and after some tense moments, EMS determined that the resident was stable and did not need a trip to the hospital. Phew!

With the crisis averted, security logged the incident, and life in the building resumed its normal rhythm. But you can bet your last peanut-free cookie that Unit 401 would be reading ingredient lists like a contract lawyer from now on.

Any Condo Rule Violations?

None! This was a true emergency, and security executed their duties flawlessly. No delays, no chaos, just a swift, coordinated response.

Moral of the story? Check your food labels, respect your allergies, and always appreciate your condo security for making sure 911 gets where it needs to go!

---

The Christmas Eve Family Brawl

On what should have been a silent night, the residents of Unit 666 found themselves in a not-so-holy night of brotherly combat.

In the middle of the night, the peace of the condo was shattered when security guards Dee and Jaz were summoned to the third floor following a noise complaint. Upon arrival, they stumbled upon two men in the hallway, engaged in an animated argument that, according to the resident of Unit 666, was "just a small disagreement." Small was an understatement.

As the security duo turned to leave, fists flew faster than Santa’s sleigh on Christmas Eve. The minor disagreement escalated into a full-fledged brawl, with Unit 666’s resident (a tenant) and his brother exchanging punches right in the hallway. The scene quickly became reminiscent of a holiday wrestling special, with Dee and Jaz caught in the middle like referees in a championship match. They swiftly intervened, breaking up the scuffle and physically separating the two combatants. After a stern warning that could have doubled as a Christmas sermon on good behavior, the resident’s brother was escorted out of the building, with security ensuring he truly left.

Condo's Governing Document Violations

The main one - Condo Act, Section 117 – Prohibited Conditions and Activities

"No person shall permit a condition to exist or carry on an activity in a unit or the common elements if the condition or activity is likely to damage the property or cause injury to an individual."

This Christmas clash was a clear violation of multiple condominium bylaws and policies:

1. Noise and Disturbances – The Corporation’s Declaration prohibit any noise or nuisance that disturbs the comfort of others​. A 2 AM fistfight in the hallway? Definitely a violation.

2. Harassment and Interference – Engaging in aggressive, abusive, or violent behavior within the premises is strictly prohibited under the corporation’s anti-harassment Policies.

3. Security Intervention and Compliance – Security has the authority to enforce condo rules and ensure compliance, as long as they are not put in harm's way (Security knows when it's time to call the "Popo" for backup). By escalating a physical altercation after being advised otherwise, the residents failed to comply with security’s instructions​.

Various steps were taken the following days following this issue. First, Management issued a stern warning, quoting the above governing documents, to both the owners and the perpetrators, registered as Tenants. Then a call with the Owner to remind them that THEY would be penalized for their Tenants' infractions to the laws, and that it would be upon them to ensure their Tenants abide with the Condo's Rules. The Owner was very responsive and followed up with the Tenants on the matter.

Violence issues are no jokes in condominiums, and there are many case laws to support abusers getting kicked out of their place for being aggressive; even owners. Some examples include Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1028 v. Jakacki (2020 ONSC 3697) , where a resident engaged in dangerous behavior, including reckless driving, drug activity, and physical altercations. The court issued an injunction, restricting the resident's access to common areas except for ingress and egress. I must provide, for educational and entertainment reason, an excerpt of the Court record:

The Respondent sent a reply to counsel’s office that read “see you in court.  I own the unit and you will not evict me.”  It ended with a middle finger emoji.  The next morning, Ms. Gentosh found two e-mails from the Respondent.  The first reads as follows:

You dumb hoe you wanna try and evict me. LOL GOODLUCK © IM THE OWNER SO YOU CANT DO SHIT BITCH HAHAHA Just cause of this i PROMISE i will make your life rund security's life HELL. You thought i was trouble oh just wait. You wanna play this game. Lets play

Another one, York Condominium Corporation No. 188 v. Chaudhry (2021 ONSC 7027), illustrates how an occupant harassed residents over religious beliefs, spreading hate-filled messages. The court ruled this a dangerous activity under the Condominium Act and banned the occupant from residing in the building.

For Unit 666, this Christmas Eve would surely be remembered for more than just holiday cheer. Next time, perhaps they’ll stick to exchanging gifts instead of blows.

---

The Mysterious Case of the Rain-Induced Scratch

Otto Trouble, a proud resident of Unit 123, never imagined that a drizzle could lead to vehicular devastation. Yet, on the fateful evening of January 1, 2019, Otto marched up to the security desk with a look of sheer determination and mild outrage. His beloved vehicle had suffered a grievous wound—a single, ominous scratch on the hood.

Now, Joseph was no ordinary car owner. He was a man who took pride in his ride, the kind of person who hand-buffed the hood on weekends while listening to vintage jazz. So, when he spotted this unexpected blemish, he was utterly flabbergasted.

According to his account, he had relocated his vehicle from its usual parking spot to the highest parking level due to heavy rain. Otto had developed an acute paranoia about flooding ever since a past deluge had transformed his parking space into a miniature lake. Rather than risk another unintended carpool experience, he had prudently moved his vehicle above prospective waters.

But lo and behold, his caution was met with catastrophe! A scratch! Right there, like a battle scar from an unknown assailant. Who could be responsible? A rogue raccoon? An envious neighbor wielding a key like a weapon? The possibilities were endless.

The security guard followed Otto outside, where he had dramatically positioned his vehicle by the lobby door, perhaps hoping for a better crime scene investigation setup. The guard took one look at the scratch, snapped a few photos, and nodded sagely. “I will report this to management,” he said, ensuring Otto’s concerns would be escalated to the higher authorities of condo bureaucracy.

On February 11, 2021, the case was officially closed. No suspect, no resolution, just a lonely, unsolved vehicular injustice.

What did Otto do wrong?

• Improper Use of Common Elements – Moving a vehicle to a different parking level without proper authorization is a misuse of common elements under the condo’s Declaration. Owners must stick to their own spot, or risk to be towed.

  
  

• No grounds for claim – Vandalism to vehicles is usually not the corporation’s responsibility—owners must claim through their own car insurance. Especially when there is no proof of it happening at the condo's garage, while parked.... illegally.

In Ontario, the responsibility for damages to vehicles in condominium parking areas hinges on the condominium corporation's knowledge and maintenance of common elements. A pertinent case is Friedrich v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1018, where a resident sued the corporation after his vehicle was vandalized in the parking garage. The court dismissed the case, noting that the corporation had implemented reasonable security measures, including closed-circuit televisions and regular security patrols. There was no evidence that the corporation's actions were negligent or that the security protocols (SOPs, Condolutions' favourite!!!) were inadequate.

The Court decision was upheld on appeal to the Superior Court of Justice. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the fact that the resident failed to establish that the corporation had breached the standard of care required under the Occupiers’ Liability Act. To add salt to injuries, Sir Friedrich ended up having to cough up several $$$$ to his condo corp upon final verdict...

Final Verdict

Otto's tragedy is a lesson in condo crime—without clear evidence, justice is often elusive; and if nothing else, his case should serve as a cautionary tale: if you slip while stealing, don’t expect sympathy.

Disclaimer: The solutions and interpretations provided in these condo stories are for informational and entertainment purposes only. They are based on specific condominiums' governing documents, policies, and relevant laws but should not be taken as legal advice. For specific legal concerns or issues, please consult a qualified lawyer or legal professional familiar with condominium law in your jurisdiction.