Toronto condo developer launches $10M lawsuit against online critics, alleging a ‘malicious campaign’

Article content

Concord has launched a related action against TikTok’s Canadian subsidiary in the Ontario Superior Court, asking the social media giant to turn over user information for the Sailor of Justice account, including associated email addresses, phone numbers and IP addresses.

Article content

None of the allegations in Concord’s claim have been proven in court.

Article content

Neither Mao nor his lawyers replied to request for comment, but in a statement of defence filed in July, he denies the company’s allegations and asks the court to dismiss the claim.

Article content

Concord’s corporate entities cannot succeed with a defamation claim, Mao argues, for comments that refer solely to their individual officers, employees and lawyers – none of whom are named as plaintiffs. He also takes issue with Concord’s translation of his Chinese-language posts on RedNote, promising to provide his own versions before examinations for discovery.

Article content

Screengrab from a TikTok video referenced in story. Photo by TikTok/@sailor.of.justice 

Article content

In any case, Mao alleges that each of the posts are defensible, claiming that they are all either substantially true or were fair comment on matters of public interest.

Article content

“The words were published on the basis of an honest belief in the truth of the statements,” Mao’s defence continues.

Article content

Article content

Concord’s additional claims for intentional interference with economic relations and conspiracy are “dressed-up claims in defamation,” Mao says in his statement of defence, claiming they are “simply an attempt to stifle or muzzle the Defendant from exercising his right of free expression relating to matters of public interest.”

Article content

As part of its claim against Mao, Concord also seeks to retain $212,000 in deposits paid by Mao since he signed an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) for a $1.06-million unit in the King’s Landing development, back in December 2021.

Article content

Although Mao attended a pre-delivery inspection in April 2026, the company says he breached the agreement when he failed to close the deal as scheduled the following month. Concord’s claim demands damages to cover any loss in the unit’s value, as well as the marketing and carrying costs associated with the search for a fresh buyer.

Article content

In his statement of defence, Mao disputes the validity of the APS and says that the contract should be declared void. Mao alleges that he was rushed into signing the agreement and claims not to have received statutorily required disclosure documents at the time he signed.

Article content

Article content

He’s not the only one facing legal action over the failure to close a deal with Concord. Since February, Concord has filed more than 50 claims for breach of contract against buyers in its Canada House and King’s Landing projects, according to Ontario Superior Court records.

Article content

Like Mao, many of the buyers sued by Concord agreed to their purchases before the Toronto condo market crash. According to the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board, the average price of a unit in the city peaked in the first quarter of 2022, at around $810,000. Meanwhile, the most recent report – released in the spring of 2026 – pegged the average price at just below $650,000.

Article content

Article content

In a statement, Concord lawyer Brian Kolenda said he was limited on what he could say due to the litigation, but added that the company had taken “appropriate steps to safeguard its business and reputation” and to ensure a safe work environment for its employees.

Article content

“Concord is always prepared to receive and address fair and legitimate concerns from its customers. However, if social media is used to spread defamatory material about our business and employees, we will respond appropriately,” said Kolenda, a partner at Toronto law firm Lenczner Slaght LLP. “The anonymous online activity at issue in our litigation goes well beyond any kind of legitimate online expression.”