Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No..1638 v. Wong, Wong v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1638 et al., 2026 ONSC 4364

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No..1638 v. Wong, Wong v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1638 et al., 2026 ONSC 4364

COURT FILE NO. CV-25-00749718-0000

CV-26-00002280-0000

DATE: 2026-07-27

BETWEEN:

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1638

Applicant

– and –

Meilee Wong

Respondent

Carol A. Dirks, Lawyer for the Applicant

Ismail Idowu Salih , Lawyer for the Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Meilee Wong

Applicant

– and –

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1638, Robert Matejka, and Tasnuva Ahmed

Respondents

Ismail Idowu Salih, Lawyer for the Applicant

Carol A. Dirks, Lawyer for the Respondents

HEARD: May 29, 2026

REASONS FOR DECISION

G. DOW, J.

1The applicant, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1638 (“TSCC 1638”) sought injunctive relief to prohibit the respondent, Meilee Wong from continuing alleged disruptive and objectionable conduct. This was detailed in the consent, interim Order of Justice Callaghan, dated December 29, 2025, where the timetable leading to this hearing was also established.

2Meilee Wong commenced her own application (CV-26-002280) which raised the following additional issues:

(a) referral of this matter to mediation/arbitration under section 132(1) of the Condominium Act 1998, S.O.1998, c.19;

(b) dismissal and/or conversion of these two matters to an action given the issues required evaluation of the credibility of evidence tendered; and

(c) a finding of oppression as against the TSCC 1638 as a result of its conduct in this matter.

3Given the request for referral the Condominium Authority Tribunal, I first heard submissions about this issue and confirmed the Condominium Authority Tribunal does not hear matters where allegations of injury or illness are raised. As Meilee Wong’s application included “injury to feelings, mental anguish and pain and suffering” (see paragraph 1(l) of her Notice of Application), I inquired of counsel for Meilee Wong if these allegations were being withdrawn. This was declined. As a result, I dismissed that part of Meilee Wong’s application so the matter could proceed as scheduled.

4Regarding the request for conversion of either or both applications to actions, given the relief sought by both parties arose from the statutory provisions of the Condominium Act, 1998, supra which also provided for determination to be by application, I declined that request. Further, as affidavit evidence was submitted by each side which could be subject to cross-examination, I was not persuaded that issues of credibility were sufficient or proper reason to accede to that request.

Background

5TSCC 1638 is thirteen storey building at 1103 Leslie Street which was completed in or about 2004. There are nine units on the seventh floor. Meilee Wong has resided in Unit 709 since it was completed. That unit shares a common wall with Unit 701 occupied by Tasnuva Ahmed since 2023. Meilee Wong’s unit is immediately across the hall from Unit 706. That unit has been occupied by Robert Matejka’s parents since 2004. Robert Matejka moved in (from another unit at 1103 Leslie Street) in or about 2009.

6The affidavit evidence was tendered by Robert Matejka, Tasnuva Ahmed and Lori-Ann Douglas, as property manager for TSCC 1638. They were not cross-examined on their evidence. I raised with counsel my concern this meant their evidence was not contested and was advised the reason for same was unaffordable litigation cost. This difficulty was compounded by the statements in Meilee Wong’s affidavit (who was cross-examined) and allegations she made of conduct by each of the TSCC 1638s affiants contrary to their stated evidence. Examples from Meilee Wong’s affidavit describes their evidence being :

(a) “fabricated” (at paragraph 24);

(b) concern “about Robert’s mental status because he kept filing police reports for incidents that never occurred” (at paragraph 56);

(c) “I have read the affidavit of Tasnuva Ahmed which contains lies and infatuations” (at paragraph 60); and

(d) “I can only say that Tasnuva is a pathetic liar” (at paragraph 70).

7The dispute between the parties began in or about 2017 when Meilee Wong alleges her unit was broken into “despite no signs of forced entry” (at paragraph 7) and a “few items were missing”. As part of reporting the incident to TSCC 1638, Meilee Wong also raised her concern about Robert Matejka’s behaviour which she described as “stalking” (at paragraph 9).

8As of 2019, Meilee Wong began complaining about cannabis smells in her unit which she alleged were coming from Units 706 and 701.

9TSCC 1638 enacted a “No Cannabis Rule” (see paragraph 7 of Lori-Ann Douglas affidavit sworn December 22, 2025) in May, 2018.

10There were many complaints to TSCC 1638 by Meilee Wong of this problem which were detailed in their records. None of the security personnel visits to the seventh floor confirmed the smell of cannabis. Meilee Wong has no direct evidence of either Robert Matejka or Tasnuva Ahmed (or visitors to their units) consuming cannabis. Counsel for Meilee Wong attempted to construe a complaint by Meilee Wong which resulted in an Incident Report on May 21, 2024 to be same. The note made by the security person, Simranjit, Kaur of her investigation of the complaint states “Writer received a call from private number that’s from unit 709 complaining about marijuana smell in her closet. Writer went to her unit there was no smell in her living room either in her bedroom there was little smell in her closet, she said its marijuana smell and said unit 701 lady does not stop doing marijuana, she thinks this smell passes through the walls from her unit. End of report.” (Case Center, Page A1475). I disagree with such a characterization of that note.

11Meilee Wong also relied on an incident December 18, 2023 at about 10:43 pm. In response to her complaint of cannabis smell coming from Tasnuva Ahmed’s unit, Meilee Wong accompanied the security officer to that unit and filmed one minute and twelve seconds of the security officer’s inspection of Tasnuva Ahmed’s unit (Exhibit O to the affidavit of Meilee Wong, sworn January 29, 2026) where no smell of cannabis was found. I find this evidence undermines the position of Meilee Wong and supports the evidence of TSCC 1638.

12The affidavit evidence of Robert Matejka and Tasnuva Ahmed is that they do not smoke cannabis (affidavit of Robert Matejka sworn December 22, 2025 at paragraph 11 and affidavit of Tasnuva Ahmed was sworn December 22, 2025 at paragraph 4). To that end, Robert Matejka and her mother produced drug testing results done November 10, 2025 showing no cannabinoids in their system (affidavit of Robert Matejka, sworn December 22, 2025 at Exhibit F). Meilee Wong rejected this evidence on the basis it merely demonstrated no cannabis use for a sufficient number of days before the taking the test.

13Further, as part of its efforts to assist Meilee Wong in documenting any cannabis smell in her unit, TSCC 1638 offer to install odour detection equipment in her unit which she declined. The reasons for doing so were not disclosed until service of her affidavit (at paragraph 42). The failure to raise these concerns before then create doubt about the veracity of Meilee Wong’s complaints. Further, one of the reasons would be the cannabis smokers would be alerted to the installation and stop usage. This reasoning fails as Meilee Wong’s problem would still be solved.

14The conduct of Meilee Wong as detailed in the evidence included profane verbal abuse as well as yelling and banging on the walls from inside her unit, particularly late in the evening.

Analysis

15Section 117 of the Condominium Act, 1998, supra prohibits conduct that is likely to cause injury to individuals to damage to property. I am satisfied, having reviewed and weighed the evidence tendered in this matter (only some of the were notable portions of which have been summarized above) that the version of events as detailed by Robert Matejka, Tasnuva Ahmed and Lorrie Dougla is to be preferred. Where the evidence in support of the allegations made against Meilee Wong differs from that of Meilee Wong, I prefer the evidence tendered by TSCC 1638. That evidence was better documented and consistent, unlike the claims made by Meilee Wong.

16I am further satisfied that the relief sought to maintain the injunctive Order of Justice Callaghan is proportionate. In this regard, I would note counsel for Meilee Wong relied on the often cited decision of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 747 v. Korolekh, 2010 ONSC 4448 (at paragraph 71) with regard to psychological harm needed to be more than “transient or trifling”. I would urge counsel for Meilee Wong to review that benchmark decision with Meilee Wong as that decision identified circumstances whereby a condominium unit owner can be ordered to sell her unit and not remain in the condominium as a result of his of her ongoing unacceptable conduct (at paragraph 89).

17Further, as part of my my concluding TSCC 1638 be successful in this application and the Order of Justice Callaghan remain in effect, I also urge counsel for Meilee Wong to review what a breach of a court order could entail.

18Having reached the conclusion that the evidence tendered by TSCC 1638 is to be preferred, there is no finding of oppression under section 135(1) of the Condominium Act 1998, supra. Meilee Wong’s application, as against all respondents, is dismissed.

Costs

19As required under Rule 57.01(6) both sides had uploaded their Costs Outline identifying the amounts sought, if successful. I was advised no Offers to Settle under Rule 49 were applicable.

20The Costs Outline of TSCC 1638 claims $15,322.80 for partial indemnity fees plus HST and disbursements which together, total $18,305.82. This rose to $26,812.35 for substantial indemnity fees and a total of $31,604.29 inclusive of substantial indemnity fees, HST and disbursements.

21This compared to Meilee Wong’s Costs Outline claiming $20,250 for partial indemnity fees and a total of $25,786.60 inclusive of partial indemnity fees, HST and disbursements.

22Given the similarity of amounts sought by each side and the success of TSCC 1638, I order Meilee Wong pay the substantial indemnity costs of TSCC 1638 fixed in the amount of $31,604.29. This applies to both applications.

23I do so, mindful of Section 134(5) of the Condominium Act 1998, supra, which provides for circumstances where the actual costs to the corporation may be added to the common expenses of the unit. I rely on the reasoning expressed in York Condominium Corporation No. 327 v. Estate of Scotti et al , 2024, ONSC 2044 and 2025 ONSC 5361 that same should not occur. In addition, counsel for TSCC 1638 confirmed they were representing both Robert Matejka and Tasnuva Ahmed in the Wong application against them and TSCC 1638.

Mr. Justice G. Dow

Released: July 27, 2026

CITATION: Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No.1638 v. Wong, Wong v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1638 et al., 2026 ONSC 4364

COURT FILE NO. CV-25-00749718-0000

CV-26-00002280-0000