top of page
Search

Mis-Direction – Reigning in a Rogue Condo Director


For years, the ICE Condos towers at 12–14 York Street have been a cautionary tale in Toronto’s condominium sector. Known for their chaotic short-term rentals, violent incidents, and media notoriety, the buildings at Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2510 (TSCC 2510) have once again made headlines. But this time, it’s not the elevators, balconies, or ghost hotels causing the drama. It’s one of their own: a director on the condo board who has been found by the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) to have engaged in persistent harassment, disruption, and interference with management operations.

 

This 2025 CAT decision is only the latest in a long history of legal battles between TSCC 2510 and director Rajat Sharma, who also happens to be a multi-unit owner and Airbnb superhost. Over the past several years, Sharma has filed and faced multiple CAT cases, including disputes over access to records, accusations of improper AGM procedures, and efforts to remove the board through an invalid requisitioned meeting. In one case, the Superior Court stepped in with an injunction to stop Sharma from proceeding with an unauthorized owners’ meeting that threatened to remove directors without due process.

 

This 2025 CAT decision, authored by Laurie Sanford, is only the latest in a long history of legal battles between TSCC 2510 and director Rajat Sharma, who also happens to be a multi-unit owner and Airbnb superhost. Over the past several years, Sharma has filed and faced multiple CAT cases and even a Superior Court injunction. Below is a chronological summary of the legal history:

 

 

  • January 2022 – CAT (2022 ONCAT 3) CAT Member: Michael Clifton


    Sharma challenged the adequacy of TSCC 2510’s Section 46.1 records. The tribunal found numerous flaws, including fictional and duplicate addresses, caused by technical errors in the recordkeeping software. Sharma was partially successful and awarded $200 in costs.

 

  • September 2022 – CAT (2022 ONCAT 95) CAT Member: Michael Clifton


    This application was dismissed after Sharma failed to move the case to Stage 3 of the tribunal process. The case was closed under Rule 34.3 for inactivity.

 

  • March 2023 – CAT (2023 ONCAT 39) CAT Member: Dawn Wickett


    Sharma, now a director, filed a records request claiming he needed access to fulfill his fiduciary duties. CAT dismissed the case, stating it lacked jurisdiction to resolve disputes about a director’s entitlement to records. The tribunal emphasized it can only adjudicate access rights related to unit ownership, not board membership.

 

  • August 2024 – CAT (2024 ONCAT 118) CAT Member: Nicole Aylwin


    Sharma filed another records dispute, claiming the documents were inaccurate and incomplete. The tribunal found most records were adequate and delivered within acceptable timeframes, save for a single employee contract. Sharma received an $80 reimbursement for an unreasonable fee but was otherwise unsuccessful.

 

  • April 2025 – CAT (2025 ONCAT 55) CAT Member: Laurie Sanford


    In the most significant ruling to date, the tribunal found that Sharma created a "toxic, hostile and disruptive" environment for management and board colleagues. Staff resignations and operational interference were directly linked to his conduct.

 

What separates this latest CAT decision from previous rulings is not just the tribunal’s clear finding that Sharma’s behaviour created a “toxic, hostile and disruptive” environment for staff and fellow board members, but the tribunal’s very direct suggestion to the corporation on what to do about it.

 

Rather than imposing a severe penalty or ordering Sharma’s removal, the CAT pointed to the limits of the tribunal’s jurisdiction. She emphasized that TSCC 2510, like any other condo corporation, retains the authority to take internal steps to manage misconduct from within. In particular, the CAT Member noted:

 

“If such a code were enacted in a bylaw as a criteria or qualification for board membership, there could be actionable consequences for misconduct.”

 

That’s a polite but pointed nudge to the board (and to all condo boards) that the best recourse against a rogue director might not come from a tribunal or court, but from their own governing documents.

 

So, what does that mean for the rest of us in the industry?

 

To start, a director’s code of conduct needs real teeth. Many boards adopt codes as policy, but few include them as formal bylaws that set enforceable conditions on board eligibility. The CAT has made it clear: unless it’s in a bylaw, your code might be a paper tiger.

 

A bylaw that addresses this issue requires specific elements to be enforceable. There must be a definition of what constitutes misconduct, including harassment, obstruction, violation of fiduciary duties, or abuse of position, as well as a process for investigating breaches, including opportunities to respond and clear consequences (such as disqualification or removal) for violations.

 

Boards should note that the CAT appears to be increasingly reluctant to play referee when it comes to dysfunctional internal dynamics. As the 2024 decision in Sharma v TSCC 2510 noted, many of these disputes are less about records and more about governance. When boards fail to take proactive steps, the result is often more litigation, more cost, and more staff turnover, as TSCC 2510 has experienced firsthand.

 

It’s no surprise that TSCC 2510 has lost multiple managers, board members, and contractors in recent years. A dysfunctional board is just as destabilizing as a broken elevator or faulty HVAC system. The management team can’t function effectively if they’re being undermined from within, and owners can’t expect stability if a single director is allowed to wreak havoc unchecked.

 

TSCC 2510’s saga should be a turning point. As condo professionals, we must push for governance frameworks that not only define director responsibilities but also provide real remedies when things go off the rails. If a board refuses to act against its own dysfunction, no tribunal, manager, or bylaw can save it. But when the framework is strong, the whole community benefits.

 

The lesson from ICE Condos? If you don’t rein in mis-direction, you’ll get lost in it.


 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page