“A man’s home is his castle,” unless it’s a condominium. Then “the right of quiet enjoyment in collective living” trumps property rights, the B.C. Court of Appeal says.

In a landmark decision Tuesday, the province’s highest court for the first time authorized the forced sale of a condo because the unit’s owner and her son were so abusive their neighbours took to wearing cameras to record the conflicts.

Faced with more than 1,100 complaints going back to 2006, the strata council of the 15,200-block of Guildford Drive spent years trying to rein in Rose Jordison and son Jordy.

The council finally told the court the misconduct, excessive noise, harassment and refusal to pay thousands of dollars in fines had become too much — they had to go.

And the B.C. Supreme Court agreed.

Last year, however, the appeal court refused to endorse such a draconian measure saying the Strata Property Act, did not expressly provide for a court-ordered sale as punishment for an owner’s misbehaviour.

This time, the appeal court panel unanimously approved the forced sale in spite of the owner’s property rights.

“The competing private property interest … must, in my opinion, yield to the rights and duties of the collective as embodied in the bylaws and enforceable by court order,” Justice Ian Donald said, supported by colleagues Anne MacKenzie and Sunni Stromberg-Stein. “The old adage ‘a man’s home is his castle’ is subordinated by the exigencies of modern living in a condominium setting.”

Originally, after now-retired Supreme Court justice Richard Blair ordered the sale of the condo in February 2012, the Court of Appeal sent the case back saying he lacked jurisdiction under the legislation to make such a decision.

Earlier this year, however, Blair found Jordison and her son in contempt for “intentionally, wilfully, and in a blameworthy fashion” disobeying part of his previous order, essentially that they behave themselves.

The judge decided that the usual penalties for contempt — a fine or imprisonment — were inappropriate but, given the added element of contempt, the law now empowered him to evict the couple and order the sale.

The disruptive duo moved out, but appealed his order to sell the unit.

This time, the high bench agreed with Blair.

“This is a case of statutory interpretation where two principles are opposed: the individual right of property and the right of quiet enjoyment in collective living arrangements,” Donald wrote.

“The case for (the mother and her son) is that their right to hold title to and occupy the strata unit cannot be taken away except by clear and express language in a statute. The (strata council) says that the general words of (the legislation)…(enable) a court to order a sale to bring an end to disruptive and uncivil behaviour when all else fails.”

Such a sale, Donald agreed, was permitted as a last resort to provide practical relief from a badly behaving owner.

“In an extreme case, which this is, where the subjects of the order have demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with an injunction, the court must have the ability to go to the terminal remedy of sale in order to fashion an effective remedy for the other strata owners,” he said.

“The appellants have repudiated the cooperative foundation of strata living and their intolerable behaviour has brought about the forced sale. There was ample evidence before the judge that only a sale would resolve the problem. In my opinion, he was correct in interpreting subsection (c) as authorizing such an order.”

(The decision is available on the court website bit.ly/1aDbFXd.)

imulgrew@vancouversun.com