The Facts Behind Sanderson’s “Unsafe Townhall” Letter
On October 30, 2025, Sanderson’s lawyer, issued a three-page letter in response to my complaint about misconduct at the October 8 townhall. Specifically, I complained that only these who criticized the board’s and management’s actions were prevented from speaking and finishing their sentences. Furthermore, the “so-called” moderator grossly misrepresented financials and condominium law, deliberately misleading owners.
The document is a case study in gaslighting, procedural ignorance, and self-serving legal theatre. Let’s unpack the most telling points – using facts, not fiction.
🧩 1. “You Can’t Ask for Timelines”
Fact:
Under section 17 and 37 of the Condominium Act, the board and its agents (including management) owe a duty of fairness, good faith, and diligence to owners.
Responding to complaints in a timely manner is part of that duty – not a favour.
Owners fund these salaries and have every right to expect timely, professional communication.
🧾 2. The “Thorough Review” That Wasn’t
Fact:
That “review” consisted entirely of interviewing Sanderson’s own staff – the very people accused of misconduct.
No independent party.
No owner witnesses.
No transparency.
This is not an investigation; it’s a PR exercise disguised as due diligence.
🧠 3. “The Real Source of Disruption Was You”
Fact:
The meeting devolved because management refused to answer basic questions about finances, transparency, and governance.
Blaming owners for reacting to evasiveness is a classic inversion of accountability – a way to shift focus from mismanagement to behaviour.
😑 4. “Facial Expressions” as a Violation
Fact:
Yes, the letter actually cites facial expressions as a basis for criticism.
There is no provision under the Condominium Act, Human Rights Code, or any other statute that prohibits facial expressions of frustration during a public meeting.
The inclusion of this line shows how far this letter stretches to pathologize dissent.
🧑⚖️ 5. The OHSA Misuse
Fact:
This claim is legally baseless.
The OHSA applies to employer–employee relationships – not to interactions between condo owners and property managers.
Owners are not employees.
No Ontario case law supports applying OHSA to public or quasi-public meetings of condominium corporations.
This is a misuse of legislation to intimidate and silence.
🧳 6. “They Felt Unsafe”
Fact:
“Feeling unsafe” is a subjective claim – not a factual or legal standard.
The audio evidence shows no threats, no violence, no intimidation – only owners asking questions and demanding answers about governance and finances.
To weaponize “safety” against transparency is to reduce legitimate oversight into “harassment.”
💻 7. The Real Motive: Control
Fact:
This recommendation is the endgame.
By forcing virtual-only meetings:
- The Board controls who speaks.
- Questions can be filtered or muted.
- Owners lose the ability to confront evasive answers in real time.
It’s not about “safety.” It’s about eliminating public accountability.
⚖️ Bottom Line
This letter is not a legal opinion – it’s a narrative defense.
It misstates the law, manipulates facts, and tries to redefine owner engagement as misconduct.
When management’s first instinct after a complaint is to call a lawyer instead of fixing the problem, that alone tells you everything you need to know.
