Why Can't You Do Whatever You Want in a Condo?
In Canada, condominiums come with significant restrictions on residents' freedom, shaped by collective rules. Residents must jointly abide by condominium-related legislation, municipal by-laws, and more — which inevitably can feel constraining.
A recent Ontario court decision is a textbook example of exactly this kind of dispute, where an owner failed to comply with governing rules and was subsequently sued by the condominium's board of directors.
In the case Niagara South Condominium Corporation No. 12 v. Locke, 2026 ONSC 728 (CanLII), the applicant (the condominium corporation) sought the following relief:
Sign an Indemnity Agreement: an order requiring the respondent (the owner) to sign an indemnity agreement regarding the video doorbell they had installed without authorization.
Mandatory unit inspection: an order permitting the condominium corporation and its professionals to enter the respondent's unit to inspect the in-suite washer and dryer installation.
Personal restraining order: an order prohibiting the respondent from harassing, threatening, or intimidating other residents, board members, the property manager, the building superintendent, and others.
The condominium building in question is a mid-to-high-rise residential building with roughly 100 units. The respondent couple purchased and moved into a unit on the 4th floor of the building in August 2023.
Shortly after moving in, however, the respondent installed a video doorbell, without authorization, at the corridor entrance to their unit door — an area classified as a Common Element. Under section 98 of the Condominium Act, any addition, alteration, or improvement to a common element requires the prior approval of the condominium's board. The respondent claimed that the building superintendent and board chair at the time had come to inspect it and verbally approved it, but the board had no record of any such approval.
The second point of dispute was that the respondent had installed a washer and dryer in their unit without authorization. This violation was not discovered until February 2025, when the building's current superintendent, responding to the respondent's request to address an electrical issue, happened to notice the washing and drying equipment installed in the unit. Concerned about the cumulative load such privately installed equipment could place on the building's drainage system, the board raised the matter at its March meeting and requested to inspect the unit — a request the respondent firmly refused. The respondent likewise claimed that the equipment had received verbal permission from a former superintendent and board chair, but again, the board had no internal record of any such approval.
The third dispute concerned allegations that the respondent had harassed the building superintendent, board members, and other residents. In response, the respondent offered a starkly different account, claiming that she and her family were in fact the true victims, having endured prolonged harassment and verbal abuse from the building superintendent and property manager.
On these three disputes, the court ultimately ruled as follows:
On the video doorbell: The evidence showed that the board was ultimately willing to compromise, agreeing to let the respondent keep the video doorbell on condition that the respondent sign an Indemnity Agreement. An outline of this agreement had been sent by the board's lawyer in a letter dated June 19, 2025, but the respondent had, to date, refused to sign it. The court found that the respondent's refusal to sign was unlawful, and ordered both parties to negotiate and finalize the text of the agreement within 30 days; if no agreement was reached by that deadline, either party could apply to the court for further directions.
On inspection of the washer and dryer: Under section 19 of the Condominium Act, a representative of the board has a statutory right to enter a unit to carry out necessary inspections, provided reasonable notice is given. The respondent's obstruction of the inspection was therefore unlawful. Given that the respondent indicated during oral submissions at the hearing that she was willing to cooperate, the court ordered that the applicant and its professionals be permitted to enter the unit for inspection upon reasonable notice.
On the harassment allegations: Although both sides submitted various video footage from security cameras, the video doorbell, and mobile phones, the footage only showed the parties engaged in some kind of verbal conflict, without clearly audible or verifiable evidence of specific threatening language. Given that the parties' affidavits diverged sharply, the written evidence was insufficient to establish the true facts. The court ordered that this portion of the application be converted into a formal civil action. If the board wishes to pursue this matter further, it must file a Statement of Claim within 20 days, after which both parties may summon witnesses for oral examination in court.
On the legal costs, because the board succeeded on the two legal issues concerning the video doorbell and the washer/dryer installation, it was entitled to seek costs from the respondent. The court ultimately ordered the respondent to pay the board's costs for the concluded portion of the matter — set at $10,000 — within 90 days.
In summary, this case offers a lesson for all condo residents: the convenience of condo living is often built on compromises to collective rules. Anyone hoping for complete freedom in their home — to renovate or install equipment however they please, without being bound by any rules — should avoid condominiums when choosing where to live, and instead consider a detached house or another type of housing with fewer restrictions.