Condo Conflicts: when does rudeness cross the line into harassment?
Disputes between neighbours in a condo setting are regrettably somewhat common. These disputes often involve disagreements, which can occasionally result in unpleasant interactions and rudeness. But at which point does rudeness cross the line into harassment? This is the question that the CAT recently answered in the Holloway case.
Facts of the case
In this case, Jeffrey Holloway alleged that Ruth Roberts, a former president of HCC 115, breached the corporation’s rule on harassment (Rule 17). He cited three incidents:
- At a July 2024 condo “meet and greet,” Ruth allegedly acted aggressively and negatively toward him.
- In December 2024, Ruth called the police after finding a medical blister pack near her door, which she believed Jeffrey had left as a threat.
- In March 2025, Jeffrey claimed Ruth swore at him and his mother in the elevator.
Jeffrey requested that Ruth be barred from using the elevator when he or his mother were present and sought $200 in costs.
Ultimate question
In order for Jeffrey to be successful, he would have to prove that Ruth’s conduct was a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption that was in breach of HCC 115’s rule on harassment.
Tribunal’s Analysis and Decision:
The Tribunal started by reviewing the evidence and noted that there was no objective evidence that Ruth actually swore at Jeffrey in the elevator. While he had a witness statement from his mother, it was basically a word-for-word copy of his own statement.
Regarding the meet-and-greet incident, Ruth admitted that her temper flared and she expressed her point of view unprofessionally. The Tribunal rightly noted that this can happen. However, there was no evidence that she had been vulgar or aggressive. While regrettable, this interaction did not rise to the level of harassment.
As for the blister pack incident, while the Tribunal accepted that the call to the police may have been due to the ongoing dispute between them, there was no evidence that this was done for an improper purpose.
Regardless, and most importantly, the Tribunal went on to note that even if it accepted that all of the incidents had taken place exactly as Jeffrey claimed, these would not amount to harassment constituting a nuisance, annoyance or disruption.
In order to reach this threshold, the conduct would have had to created a substantial interference that is greater than the persons involved ought to be required to bear in the circumstances.
Taken at face value, the alleged incidents here demonstrated three discrete events where people in conflict with one another acted impolitely. These isolated incidents of rudeness are not actionable nuisances. An individual’s subjective feelings of annoyance, irritation or inconvenience do not constitute a nuisance at law.
Ultimately, the case was dismissed with no costs awarded.
Rudeness vs. Harassment: The Legal Distinction
One of the most important aspects of this decision (at least for me) is the CAT’s discussion on the difference between:
- isolated incidents of rudeness and
- harassment that rises to the level of nuisance or disruption at law.
For conduct to qualify as harassment or nuisance, it must create a substantial interference with another person’s ability to reasonably enjoy their unit or the common elements.
Harassment requires more than subjective annoyance or irritation. Instead, there must be evidence of ongoing or serious behaviour that goes beyond ordinary conflict between neighbours.
Takeaways
First take away
The key takeaway here is that subjective feelings of being offended or disrespected are not enough to amount to harassment.
In other words, an incident of a raised voice at an AGM, or an “eye roll” in the hallway should not meet the test. The conduct must be serious, repetitive, or harmful in a way that impacts the person’s ability to live in their home without substantial interference.
Second take away
The CAT is not a forum to litigate personal conflicts between residents or isolated incidents of rudeness.
To be clear, my goal here is not to celebrate rudeness or suggest that it is never appropriate to commence a legal proceeding if true and ongoing harassment is taking place. However, this case stands for the proposition that not all unpleasant interactions or disputes should proceed to the CAT, and provides an incentive for those involved to resolve the matter out of court.
Third take away
Time to review your rules on harassment. Make sure they are robust enough to address harassment but clear and flexible enough not to turn every unpleasant interaction into a court case.
When in doubt about whether someone’s conduct has crossed the line into harassment, the best course of action is to get some guidance from your favourite condo lawyer.
You can read the Holloway v. Roberts, 2025 ONCAT 161 here.