Landlord forced to pay at least $8K to cover costs of noisy tenant

A Toronto condo landlord has been forced to pay at least $8,500 to cover his “annoying” tenant’s expenses.

February 10, The Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) found both owner Frank Micoli and tenant Ilan Philosophe. Yonge Street and St. Clair Ave condos are equally responsible for the “annoying” behavior of their tenants.

In the document, CAT Vice-Chairman Michael Clifton said Micoli would have to pay $8,551.50 to cover legal costs, and both Micoly and Philosophy would pay $18,239.60 in solidarity to the company that manages the condo. I decided it was necessary.

The CAT confirmed to CTV News Toronto that this was “the largest order ever issued by a court.”

According to the decision, Philosophy moved into the building in July 2021 and “began to cause nuisance, annoyance, or confusion to other residents and condominium staff.”

“Unpleasant and disruptive behavior” included him leaving food containers in hallways for long periods of time, causing “stench and tripping hazards” and “excessive noise.”

Clifton also said there was a “consistent pattern of abuse and aggression” against building staff and the condo’s lack of compliance with COVID-19 regulations.

In November 2021, the condo’s attorneys wrote letters to both Philosophie and Micori outlining these concerns, according to the documents. Nonetheless, the decision notes that building security staff recorded about 30 more incidents and received several complaints from residents.

Meanwhile, Philosophy and his lawyers allege that the condo board is using the court to “eject” him from the building, and that the incident is the staff’s “personal revenge” following the “initial altercation.” suggests that it was motivated by

Details of the alleged altercation were not brought up in the case, and the condo company denied it. , Ultimately, the claim that this entire incident was motivated solely by such an alleged animus is unconvincing.

The deputy chairman said Mr. Micoli had “little participation” throughout the legal proceedings, and the condominium company said Micoli had taken a “laissez-faire” attitude regarding all complaints about residents in his unit. Consistent with claims.

As a result, Clifton argued that his “lack of reasonable effort” to address Philosophy’s actions placed the burden on the condo company to take matters into their own hands, including the costs of this lawsuit. said. giving Micoli a “significant portion of those costs”.

According to the documents, Micoli reportedly began filing an application to settle the matter with CAT and Philosophe, but the condo company said in the process that he would not pursue it. said.

of Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB)Oversee landlord-tenant disputes.

“The undisputed testimony of the parties is [the condo owner] We have been unable to take any reasonable steps to address the issue of tenants’ longstanding non-compliance,” Clifton wrote.

Philosophy has previously expressed his intention to leave the unit “at some point in the near future”, with Clifton writing that in his decision “it will be better for all the parties he does”.

Until he vacates, Clifton orders Philosophy to cease all vandalism in his unit and elsewhere on the property, and Micori assures tenants that the condominium rules will be respected. I have ordered you to comply with the statutory obligations.

“Dysfunctional Love Triangle”

Rod Escayola, partner at Gowling WLG, which specializes in condominium law, said the case shows that: A costly lesson for both unit owners and tenants.

Escayola told CTV News Toronto that Micoli “seems to be enjoying the benefits of being a landlord, but they don’t want to deal with the downsides.”

Attorney Mark Goldgrubb Green Economy Law Corporationthe condo owner’s responsibility is first and foremost to tell Philosophy to stop the disruptive behavior or to be evicted from the unit.

“He could do it by email, letter, written communication and had to send a CC to the condo company. But he wasn’t,” Goldglove said.

Escayola said what this particular case did exposed a “dysfunctional love triangle” between the condominium company, condominium owners and tenants.

“That’s because each has an independent relationship with each other. Corporations can easily regulate owners. Owners can regulate tenants and vice versa. There is no real relationship,” he said.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button