THE CURLING WARS
FROM JUNE 2022 ISSUE OF WEST END PHOENIX
Neel Dayal, along with some of his neighbours whose backyards abut the High Park Club’s grounds, had hoped local kids could play in the club’s empty lot when the pandemic forced people to stay home. The club’s board decided on “banning access to everyone.”
A backyard battle has been brewing between the High Park Club and Algonquin Avenue residents who claim the private curling facility needs to be a better neighbour – raising questions about how much we’re owed by the businesses who operate among us
The High Park Club (HPC) is one of the oldest curling clubs in the city, where members have been gathering to sweep rocks and socialize for more than a century. It’s been a fixture in south Roncesvalles for 112 years, boasting five curling sheets, two lawn tennis courts and of course a bar and banquet hall to attract new members. It’s an exclusive facility – the wait list for a tennis membership is five to seven years long – but that might not be obvious at a glance. The low brick building is crammed into a tight block of houses and apartments at the foot of Indian Road and surrounded by residential homes all along its perimeter.
The residents on Algonquin Avenue know the layout well. Their properties abut the HPC and their backyard fences run along the edge of its parking lot. One of those neighbours is Neel Dayal, who lives on Algonquin with his wife, Suchorita, and their two children. After moving to the area in February 2019, the couple decided to become social members at HPC, which provided them access to the restaurant. In May 2021, the club offered them a chance to skip the notorious waitlist to use the tennis courts as well. But despite that gesture, Dayal says, over the past two years his relationship with the club has taken a turn. The non-profit club is run by a volunteer board of directors, along with an on-site staff. Like many facilities, HPC shut down at the start of the pandemic, back in March 2020, and its parking lot remained empty. Dayal contacted the club, asking if the kids on Algonquin Avenue could play in the lot, as they were desperate to get outside when schools were initially closed. The club raised concerns about children getting hurt on their property, so Dayal asked a lawyer to draw up an agreement to exclude the club from any liability, and HPC agreed.
For the next few spring days, kids and their families took turns playing tag and football in the lot. But then the club rescinded its offer and banned the kids from using its property, citing public health guidelines discouraging large gatherings. Another local, Gerald (not his real name; he agreed to speak to WEP anonymously), says he and his kids were asked to leave the property even though they were only playing with members of their household and offered to sign a liability waiver. (A text message sent to Dayal confirmed the board’s decision on “banning access to everyone.” ) Shortly after, signs reading “No Trespassing” were put up around the grounds.
“It was kind of disappointing because it was an unused space,” says Dayal. “All the kids have a very negative feeling toward this organization because in the darkest days of COVID, all they wanted to do was throw a football around. And that was taken away from them.”
Lisa Strauss and her kids were among the neighbours playing in the parking lot at the start of the pandemic. Strauss’s backyard fence has a gate that she would use to go to the club as a member, while her kids would meet friends in the parking lot before walking to a nearby bus stop. But after the “No Trespassing” signs went up, HPC installed a piece of wire fencing over Strauss’s gate on the side facing its lot, preventing her from accessing the parking lot from her yard. (The north parking lot remains open at the main entrance.)
“I was amazed that in the height of the pandemic that’s what they spent their time focusing on,” says Strauss. “Children [were] in their houses with nothing to do. And you have an empty parking lot sitting here. And they can’t kick a soccer ball.”
Strauss has complained to the club that the wired fencing was installed without notifying her. She has discussed the matter with several representatives from the club, where she plays tennis, but the fencing remains, leaving her feeling puzzled. “Why do they care if I’m cutting into the parking lot for tennis?” she asks. “It’s just very strange. They’re the worst neighbours you could want.”
When asked to comment on the fencing over Strauss’s gate, the board’s past president Chris Wai responded, “We respectfully ask that our neighbours, on Algonquin Avenue or otherwise, respect our private property, just as we respect theirs, and as they would any of their other neighbours,” noting that the club will not answer questions on private property matters.
In June 2021, a month after a failed bid to join HPC’s volunteer board, Dayal started a construction project to replace his backyard fence, which borders the club’s north parking lot. After notifying HPC, the plan was for his contractor to use one of the club’s parking spaces so the dirt excavated from Dayal’s yard could be emptied into the truck. However, he also decided to build a pool. Dayal says he did not think the pool detail would be relevant to the club since it would only impact his private property. “Right or wrong, I didn’t think that that was pertinent information,” he says.
On June 24, 2021, Dayal’s contractor arrived with a disposal bin, but found he couldn’t fit the equipment through the entrance to the parking lot. So the contractor dumped a pile of dirt from Dayal’s backyard directly onto the club’s property.
“The one day I wasn’t home was the day they started the excavation and they put dirt onto the club’s parking lot, which was not part of the plan from the contractor. So I wasn’t informed,” says Dayal.
The club says that “the extensive amount of excavated backyard material and equipment on [the] club’s property” violated their previous agreement with Dayal. That same day, the club responded by sending Dayal and Suchorita a cease-and-desist letter demanding that they stop all construction activity and remove all materials and equipment within 48 hours. The letter also said that it considered this incident to be trespassing, because the contractors were granted access for the fence project, not the pool build. The letter also argued the construction project posed liability issues, potential lost parking revenue, and could jeopardize the club’s CafeTO application to use a portion of the parking lot as patio space.
Dayal says he was taken aback by the legal notice. In retrospect, he admits he should have provided more details about the extent of the project.
Strauss wrote an email to the club asking it to let Dayal’s construction continue so the project could be wrapped up quickly, insisting that other neighbours have used the club’s parking lot for construction projects without complaint. Gerald also wrote an email in support of Dayal and Suchorita, asking that the project be allowed to continue. In response to both appeals, the club acknowledged that it had received similar emails from other neighbours as well.
Residents pushed back against the Club’s CaféTO plans, expressing concern that they hadn’t been consulted. The permit was granted under conditions that included no outdoor music.
On June 25, HPC sent a letter to Algonquin Avenue residents about its exchanges with Dayal, stating, “In recent days, a controversy has arisen about construction being done by the owners of an Algonquin Avenue house.” In the letter, the club said it was “blindsided” by the excavated materials and the scale of the project, stating that it raised liability concerns.
In the following days, Dayal and HPC came to an agreement. Dayal would be allowed to continue his pool construction after agreeing to pay the club a fee to rent the entire north parking lot so his contractors could have access. The charges totalled over $5,000, a rate of $1,000 per day. It seemed like an agreeable arrangement for all, but it wasn’t the end of things.
Shortly after, during construction, Dayal says one of his contractors notified him that someone took photos of the workers without their consent. Dayal suspected the club was responsible and brought it to the board’s attention in an email. In response, High Park Club president Peter Krimbalis explained in an email to Dayal that due to “...the risks the club has taken – and continues to take – in support of your project, detailed documentation of the process is in everyone’s best interest here.”
He added, “As a matter of courtesy, we will endeavour to not capture any of the contractors working on the property, unless they are engaged in activities that bring undue risk to the club’s property and assets.”
Weeks later, Dayal and Suchorita allege that the club’s manager, Kristy Rawluck, recorded a conversation between the three of them – about the fees to rent the parking lot – without their knowledge. (WEP asked the club’s board to respond to the allegation and hasn’t received a response on the matter.)
Dayal says he didn’t expect lawyers to get involved in his dispute with HPC, because the club has been neighbourly to other residents who have occasionally used the parking lot without issue. But lawyer Jared Brown, who specializes in property disputes and was not contracted by any of the sources we spoke to, says because HPC is a private club, neighbours need to negotiate with the facility if they require access to the property for any reason – and HPC has the right to set the terms for how the property gets used.
“It’s a private club. They’re entitled to maintain the integrity of the property,” explains Brown. “They don’t have to allow [someone] to use it. And to the extent that they may have, they were just trying to be good neighbours.” He also says that while the pile of soil dumped on HPC’s parking lot is unlikely to cause permanent damage, it could be interpreted as an offence to the original agreement.
Brown notes another option for the Algonquin neighbours is to apply to the City of Toronto for a right-of-entry permit under the Building Construction and Demolition bylaw. These permits may be granted when a neighbour requires access to an adjacent property in order to make repairs on their side of the fence.
Brown also says that having a clear policy to deal with private property issues on a consistent basis may be helpful to HPC, but that the club is in no way required to have such stipulations in place. He says that while neighbours may view it as a communal space, legally it’s private property.
As real estate lawyer Mark Weisleder sees it, “It’s really simple. If you want to use your neighbours’ land, they don’t have to let you. And if they will let you on certain terms, you’d better follow them.” He says that while he advises clients to work out these disputes without lawyers if possible, a private property owner like HPC is probably being advised by its own legal team to get clear commitments from neighbours who access its property – and not to diverge from those agreements in any way.
But the residents on Algonquin Avenue say they want clear communication, too. Last year, as the city was rolling out its CaféTO program for a second summer, the High Park Club was applying for a permit. When Dayal and his neighbours caught wind of it, they reached out to Councillor Gord Perks to facilitate a meeting, concerned they weren’t being consulted.
Eventually the permit was granted under the condition that the hours be limited, there be no outdoor music and the club provide a contact for neighbours to register complaints. Originally, the proposal included the north parking lot, the one that shares a property line with the families on Algonquin Avenue. In the end, the permit was restricted to the second-floor verandah. Councillor Perks confirmed there have been no complaints about the club’s patio from residents, and the club’s application to renew has been approved for 2022 as well.
During the course of that July 2021 meeting, Dayal and Strauss brought up other concerns about the club, including its engagement with neighbours, the need for better communication, and the need for more diversity on the club’s board. Perks says many of the issues discussed were outside his jurisdiction, and his office was squarely concerned with the concerns related to the CafeTO permit.
“I did, as I try to do, make suggestions both to the community and the club about how to be better neighbours for each other,” says Perks. His office also shared examples with the club on the public appointments process municipal agencies use to recruit board members. “Municipal governments cannot tell private entities how to govern themselves,” says Perks. “All I can do is make suggestions that they talk to each other. But then it’s their responsibility.” He added, “I always tell everybody that it’s in your interest to be a good neighbour.”
Since then, Dayal has sent two follow-up emails in January and March 2022 to the board, repeating the concerns discussed in the community meeting and offering to discuss recommendations. Dayal also noted in his email to the board that he felt singled out as one of the few members of a visible minority on the street.
From a shared email account, the board acknowledged receipt of Dayal’s emails and promised to give his comments consideration. Since then, Dayal says there has been no further follow-up.
“I think it’s important that if you operate in a community, you should engage in a collaborative, community-based manner. And they don’t do that,” Dayal says.
In a statement to WEP, the club’s past president Chris Wai wrote, “We are saddened that this property owner has continued to make unfounded allegations following their improper use of our club’s property. Our board and small management team spent countless hours – involving hundreds of emails and several conversations and meetings – trying to accommodate this property owner’s extensive pool and backyard excavation project, with the sole intention of being a good neighbour ourselves....Despite misleading our club about the scope of the project and subsequently using our property as a dumping ground and construction staging area to build their new swimming pool, we continued to work in good faith with this property owner throughout, ultimately resolving our outstanding issues in January this year.”
But Dayal, Strauss and Gerald say there is still more work to be done when it comes to improving relationships with local residents.
In a follow-up statement, Wai wrote, “As a board comprising volunteers, we are not interested in a public back-and-forth with [Dayal] who is also [a] member of our club....We regularly agree to construction projects on our neighbours’ properties that involve the temporary use of our facilities when the club is appropriately informed and can ensure all work can be done safely and with minimal risk and impact to our members’ use of the club. Unfortunately, this was not the case in this instance.”
Gerald says witnessing how the club has dealt with Dayal and Strauss “has left a sour taste in our mouths.” Though Gerald has lived in the community for more than a decade, he agrees with Dayal that there’s a disconnect between the club and its neighbours. “To me, they’re not part of the community at all,” he says. But he’s still hopeful that “there’s an appetite for change, and that we can drive a bit of it.”
Dayal says that some of his neighbours have encouraged him to move on from his dispute with the club, fearing that it could impact how the club treats them as well. But he still believes there’s hope that HPC will engage differently with its neighbours in the future. “You can make change happen, but you’re not going to make any change happen by being quiet and not talking about it.”
As for Strauss, she says her interactions with the club have left her feeling confused. “I don’t understand their messaging. I don’t really know what they’re going for,” she says. “I just want them to act like a regular neighbour would.”