Multigenerational living occurs when two or more generations of a family live under the same roof. Multigenerational living in a condominium presents operational challenges that need to be managed. The choice to age in place (see our article on Aging in Place), creates an opportunity for condominium communities to enhance resident’s quality of life.

Elder Abuse

In the context of multigenerational living, it is essential to consider the dynamics unfolding between generations under one roof. The Board cannot afford to turn a blind eye.

In a recent case, York Region Condominium Corporation No. 570 v. Edery (“YRCC 570”) commenced an application under Section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19 (the “Act”) seeking an order for compliance, as well as prohibiting one of the Respondents, Malka Renee Edery (“Renee”) from occupying or visiting a Unit at YRCC 570 owned by her mother (the Respondent, Kathryn Edery), as a result of her dangerous conduct.

The facts of the case were that Kathryn had purchased the Unit and lived there without issue since 2020 until July 2023, when her daughter, Renee, moved in with her. Kathryn suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and was deemed by her physician incapable of managing her property and personal care. In July 2023, prior to Renee moving into the Unit, Kathryn appointed her other daughters, Esther Ohayon (“Esther”) and Joyce Kadoch (“Joyce”), as her powers of attorney for property and personal care.

Almost immediately after Renee moved into the Unit, her presence resulted in a significant disruption to those around her. The Corporation alleged that Renee had engaged in a campaign of harassment and intimidation towards property management. The Corporation adduced evidence that Renee followed, photographed, and harassed YRCC 570’s property manager, as well as made unfounded accusations of misconduct and elder abuse against her. Renee’s actions towards staff and management were presented as a contravention of Sections 117 of the Act and as conduct that created potential liability under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Justice Fraser found that: i) Renee’s denials did not overcome the serious concerns raised by the evidence; ii) although the police had been called to the Unit without further action, this did not detract from the issues before the Court; and iii) Kathryn lacked the capacity to control or address Renee’s behaviour. The Court ultimately concluded that

“Many people have attempted to resolve this situation without resorting to Court. However, it has been without success. I conclude that YRCC 570 has demonstrated non-compliance that that Kathryn and Renee are in breach of sections 116, 117 and 119 of the Act and the governing documents of YRCC 570.

I do not fault Kathryn for the current situation. In my view, she does not have the ability to exert control over Renee. The remedy is for Renee to leave the unit and for her to be prevented from visiting her mother at the condominium, except with the express consent of YRCC 570.”

Takeaways

This decision highlights the growing intersection of condominium law, elder care, and mental health. Condominium Boards are increasingly being asked to address interpersonal situations that extend beyond typical rule violations. It is important to remember that, regardless of circumstances, the Act confirms that unit owners are responsible for the conduct of any residents, visitors, and/or other attendees of their units. However, this case affirms the shared responsibilities that unit owners and employees have to protect vulnerable residents and ensuring a safe environment.

See our full article on Multigenerational Living in a Condominium

Patricia Elia
Elia Associates