Understanding Section 135 of Ontario’s Condominium Act
🧾 The Law
Section 135(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998 says:
“An owner, a corporation, a declarant or a mortgagee of a unit may make an application to the court for an order that the conduct of an owner, the corporation, a declarant or a mortgagee of a unit is or threatens to be oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to the applicant or unfairly disregards the interests of the applicant.”
🧠 What Does That Mean?
Oppression is not just about being treated badly.
It’s about conduct that is:
- High-handed (abusive or dismissive)
- Unfairly one-sided
- Disrespectful of rights
- Or that ignores legitimate expectations you’re entitled to as a unit owner.
🧭 The Three Legal Tests in Oppression Claims
To succeed under Section 135, you must usually show:
1. You had a reasonable and legitimate expectation
You expected:
- To be treated fairly and equally
- That the board would follow the rules
- That decisions would be made in good faith
- That your rights as an owner would be respected
These aren’t special demands – they’re baked into how condo governance is supposed to work.
2. The board’s conduct breached that expectation
Oppression often includes:
- Selective enforcement of rules
- Retaliation or punishment against dissent
- Denial of fair process
- Ignoring owner rights, safety, or accommodations
- Using legal threats to silence complaints
- Refusing access to records without reason
- Treating the condo as a private club
It can be what they do, or what they refuse to do.
3. The conduct caused you harm
This can include:
- Emotional distress
- Loss of enjoyment of your unit
- Financial harm (e.g., being sued with condo funds)
- Public humiliation
- Isolation from the community
- Repeated, escalating conflict caused by poor governance
🧷 Examples of Oppressive Conduct in Condos
These are types of behaviour that may qualify as oppression:
| Board Conduct | Why It May Be Oppressive |
|---|---|
| Selectively enforcing rules against one owner but not others | Treats owners unequally without justification |
| Refusing to accommodate a disability, even with medical proof | Disregards legal obligations and owner interests |
| Using condo funds to sue a dissenting owner | Financial abuse of community resources |
| Ignoring harassment complaints from one resident | Failure to provide safe, equitable living conditions |
| Blocking owners from calling a meeting or seeing records | Disrespects transparency and democratic rights |
| Misleading the community about legal outcomes | Manipulates trust and distorts governance |
🛑 What Oppression Is Not
- Enforcing a rule equally and fairly isn’t oppressive.
- Making a decision you disagree with, if done properly, isn’t necessarily oppression.
- The law doesn’t demand perfection — it demands fairness, consistency, and respect for rights.
📌 Final Thought
Section 135 exists to stop condo boards from becoming abusive, selective, or retaliatory.
You have the right:
- To be treated fairly
- To be heard
- To have your rights respected
- To live free from targeted or retaliatory governance
If those rights are ignored or trampled, Section 135 gives you the power to fight back – not just morally, but legally.
👉 If you believe your rights have been violated, contact us confidentially through the Condo Leak Tipline at www.CondoTribune.com/tipline – your story matters, and you’re not alone.
📝 While we are not lawyers, we’ve spent years learning the Condominium Act, tribunal process, and case law – and we’re here to help point you in the right direction.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal guidance specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.
