Principles Of Condo Governance: Fostering Inclusion And Respect

In his book, Condominium Conquest: Urban Governance, Law, and Condoization in New York City and Toronto (UBC Press, 2019), Randy Lippert identifies instances when compliance complaints were motivated more by "ethnicity, race or national origin" than by the conduct itself. In a Toronto condominium, for example, the issue appeared to centre on the fact that the family in question were immigrants: "They're from the Middle East," a board member complained. "They haven't got the concept yet that this is an apartment building." In a New York condominium case, the complainant suggested, "Why don't you move back to China?" Lippert also notes that cases concerning the number of occupants in a unit are sometimes rooted in cultural insensitivity, which can give rise to racialized stereotyping.

Few but significant incidents: Why every case matters

It is a small grace that Lippert notes that racialized issues in condominiums appear to be few in number. My own experience attests to that. I recall only one case about which racism was evidently a genuine issue: a case in which the condominium president referred to one row of its townhomes as "the ghetto" based on the presence there of black residents.

When it's not about guilt, but about response

I have also heard a few stories from condominium managers, like the one where the condominium board member found out what a mezuzah was only after demanding that it be removed from the doorway of a Jewish unit occupant. There is a similar story about the placement of a swastika, a Hindu symbol of good fortune that is sadly but reasonably confused with the commonly used Nazi symbol of hate. The manager was glad to have resisted her first, "gut reaction" to want to remove it; she and others in the condominium had the opportunity to overcome cultural misunderstanding before, and without, causing unnecessary offense. Possibly the unit occupant also learned something about caring cultural communication.

There are only a few condominium-related court or tribunal cases in Ontario in which racism or racial discrimination is a significant factor, and none in which the board, manager, or community were actually found guilty of or complicit in that kind of discrimination. However, those cases raise important points to consider: that sometimes racism can be a felt thing, even if it isn't a done thing; and sometimes, it can be a done thing that affects the condominium or condominium living, even if it wasn't done by the condominium itself. In both situations, condominiums and their boards can respond in better or worse ways.

The legal risks of delay and silence

In Morris v. Wilson Blanchard Management Inc. (2013 HRTO 105), for example, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal found that hateful and threatening racist graffiti had been painted on a wall adjacent to the condominium. The allegation was that similar graffiti appeared on the condominium's walls as well. In this case, the time taken by the condominium board to determine the facts and their obligations was perceived by the affected individuals as complacency and disregard.

The tribunal found that the evidence did not support the allegation of discrimination; nonetheless, the unit owner suffered real harm, including fear, frustration, and the sense of being demeaned solely on account of race. One has to wonder what could have been said or done, but wasn't, to help resolve those feelings while the corporation undertook the task of determining its legal obligations. One can also ask: why weren't those things either thought of, said, or done?

Boards must balance empathy with duty

It is not the job of a condominium board to coddle and comfort every upset individual within its community; nor must it walk on tenterhooks, seeking to avoid every possible offense. However, it is a fundamental responsibility of every person – and, in particular, of anyone with power or responsibility over others – to be aware of and sensitive to the nature and effects of racism, and to act in ways that help eliminate, rather than perpetuate, it, even when the harm is not directly caused by that person.

Why boards must lead with integrity and awareness

Decisions made – or actions taken, not taken, or even merely tolerated – by a condominium board could give rise to significant legal liability. Racial discrimination is one of several forms of discrimination prohibited under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Further, a lack of caution regarding the fair and dignified treatment of unit occupants and owners could easily lead a board to make decisions that are inconsistent with the Condominium Act, 1998, including its obligations to act in good faith and with reasonable diligence and care. However, the risk of legal liability should not be the primary motivation for anyone to do the right thing.

Community starts with inclusion, not just compliance

Lippert also notes that when condominiums first became the subject of Canadian laws and policies, they were intended to be developed not merely as investment commodities – as too many people see them today – but as communities. Consciously ensuring that racialized ideas, attitudes, stereotypes, and assumptions do not affect the decisions made in and by condominiums is one important way to foster a strong community spirit and experience. How could that not be a good thing?

Bold, inclusive, and legally sound condo governance starts here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.