Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Esther and Joyce remained valid co-attorneys despite later powers of attorney in favour of Renee, due to Kathryn’s impaired capacity and Renee’s adverse interest

• Condominium corporation had statutory authority to seek a court order under the Condominium Act to enforce compliance and protect its staff and residents

• Evidence established Renee engaged in harassing, threatening, and impersonating behavior, including impersonating her mother via email

• Renee’s conduct was found to breach sections 116, 117, and 119 of the Condominium Act, as well as the corporation’s rules and by-laws

• Court issued a permanent compliance order prohibiting Renee from occupying or visiting the condominium unit or common areas

• Court reserved costs decision, inviting written submissions from all parties following its ruling

Factual background

The dispute in this case involved York Region Condominium Corporation No. 570 (YRCC 570), a not-for-profit condominium corporation managing a building with 249 units. The applicant sought a court order to prohibit Malka Renee Edery (Renee) from occupying or visiting her mother Kathryn Edery’s condominium unit and the building’s common areas.

Kathryn, an elderly woman suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, was declared incapable of managing her property and personal care. Her daughters Esther Edery Ohayon and Joyce Kadoch were named co-attorneys for property and personal care under powers of attorney executed in July 2023. Renee, who had been living in Israel, returned to Canada in October 2023 and moved into her mother's unit shortly thereafter.

The condominium corporation alleged that Renee’s arrival marked the beginning of serious behavioural issues, including harassment of staff, making unsubstantiated claims of elder abuse, and impersonating Kathryn in email communications. Esther and Joyce corroborated these claims, asserting that Renee restricted family access to Kathryn, placed surveillance cameras in her unit, and displaced Kathryn from the primary bedroom.

Renee denied all allegations, claiming that she provided care for her mother and submitted letters of support. However, it was revealed that some authors of those letters did not understand the purpose for which they were being used.

In February 2025, Renee presented new powers of attorney signed in her favour. However, due to Kathryn’s cognitive impairment and the absence of a motion to displace Esther and Joyce, the Court did not accept the validity of those new instruments for purposes of this proceeding.

Legal issues

The Court addressed the following central issues:

1. Whether the proceeding could continue in light of competing powers of attorney: The Court held that Esther and Joyce remained the appropriate litigation guardians. Renee was found to be in an adversarial position and thus unsuitable to act in that role.

2. The Court’s authority to issue an order barring Renee from the condominium premises: Citing several provisions of the Condominium Act, 1998, particularly sections 117 and 119, and prior case law, the Court confirmed that the corporation had both a duty and the legal authority to ensure compliance with its governing documents and to prevent harassment and endangerment within the property.

3. Whether a compliance order was necessary: The Court found sufficient evidence of Renee’s disturbing conduct, including stalking, yelling, photographing building personnel, impersonating Kathryn in emails, installing cameras in private areas, and isolating Kathryn from her family. The Court also accepted sworn evidence that Kathryn had expressed fear of returning to her own home.

The Court’s decision

Justice S.E. Fraser concluded that a compliance order was both appropriate and necessary. The decision included the following key terms:

• Renee was ordered to immediately cease all harassing, threatening, intimidating, or inappropriate conduct towards any staff, resident, or visitor of the condominium, both within the unit and common areas

• She was permanently prohibited from visiting or occupying the unit or attending any part of the condominium property, except with express permission from YRCC 570

• If any part of the order is breached, the condominium corporation may seek a further court order, including one forcing the sale of the unit

• The Sheriff or any legal enforcement officer was authorized to carry out the terms of the order as needed

Conclusion

The Court’s ruling affirms the responsibility and power of condominium corporations to act decisively in protecting their residents and staff from harmful behaviour. Despite the sensitive family dynamics, the Court found that Renee’s conduct—supported by credible and consistent evidence—posed a risk to both Kathryn and the broader condominium community. It also reaffirmed that a condominium unit is not an unfettered private space, but one subject to communal rules and responsibilities. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s willingness to impose strict compliance orders when internal governance mechanisms fail to resolve serious conflicts.

There was no specific monetary figure ordered in the ruling; the costs remain to be determined following those submissions.