Anna Boudria

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to the mediation stage.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal of their wish to withdraw the case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed, noting that all settlement-related communications remain confidential.

The applicant filed an application regarding a dispute over condominium records.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, citing concerns that the proceeding was commenced for an improper purpose or fell outside its jurisdiction.

After reviewing submissions from both parties, the Tribunal found that a legitimate dispute regarding the October 18, 2025 records request remained within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal ordered that the application proceed and not be dismissed at this stage.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal that proceeded to Stage 2 mediation.

After mediation reached an impasse, the applicant was given the opportunity to move the matter to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fee within 15 days.

The Tribunal ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicants and the respondent condominium corporation agreed to settle their dispute regarding visitor parking and parking space assignments during Stage 2 mediation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order rescinding the policy that imposed monthly fees for visitor parking spaces, restoring seven visitor parking spots on a first-come, first-served basis, and temporarily assigning a specific parking spot to one of the applicants' sons.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 2 mediation.

After reaching an impasse, the applicant was given the opportunity to move the matter to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fee within 15 days.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request.

During mediation, the respondent provided all requested records.

The applicant sought to amend records and raised governance issues, which fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and, after reviewing submissions, dismissed the application as all requested records had been provided and the remaining issues were outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to the mediation stage.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

Following the dismissal of the underlying condominium dispute, the respondent brought a motion under Rule 47 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice to reopen the case solely to seek costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that reopening the matter at this juncture solely to address costs was not warranted, as the circumstances leading to the dismissal had already been addressed.

The applicant filed two cases with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request and issues with a Periodic Information Certificate.

The matters were merged and proceeded to mediation.

The applicant failed to move the matter to Stage 3 within the permitted time despite reminders.

The Tribunal ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request.

The matter proceeded to mediation, where the mediator determined the case was filed for an improper purpose, noting the applicant's persistent focus on governance issues, defamatory allegations against the board, and continued harassment of board members.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

After reviewing submissions, the Tribunal found the application was initiated in bad faith and for an improper purpose, as the applicant sought to use the records request process to advance grievances against the board rather than to obtain records.

The application was dismissed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice and section 1.41(1) of the Condominium Act.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request.

The matter proceeded to Stage 2 Mediation but was subsequently abandoned, with no communication on the portal for over 15 days.

After issuing a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to which the applicant did not respond, the Tribunal ordered the application closed for abandonment under Rule 34.3(d) of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium owner filed a records request with the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order formalizing the settlement, which required the respondent to pay the applicant $75.00 and acknowledged that the applicant had received the requested records, including the declaration, by-laws, and financial statements.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 Mediation regarding the applicant's dog.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a Consent Order permitting the dog to return to the applicant's unit subject to strict conditions, including muzzling, short-leashing, and mandatory obedience training.

The order also outlined conditions under which the dog must be permanently removed from the premises.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding smoke infiltration in his unit.

After mediation reached an impasse, the applicant was permitted to move the matter to Stage 3 but failed to take the necessary steps or pay the required fee within the allotted time.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding the assignment of a common element parking space.

After mediation reached an impasse, the applicant was given the opportunity to move the matter to Stage 3 but failed to do so or pay the required fee within the allotted time.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding the assignment of a common element parking space.

After the applicant ceased communication during the mediation stage, a Notice of Intent to Dismiss was issued.

Upon reviewing the parties' submissions, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not abandoned the application and that mediation would not resolve the dispute.

The Tribunal ordered that the case remain open and permitted the applicant to proceed to Stage 3.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request for meeting minutes, lease notices, and Periodic Information Certificates.

During mediation, the respondent provided the requested documents and agreed to reimburse the filing fee.

The applicant continued to dispute minor issues regarding redactions, draft minutes, and undated certificates, as well as demanding a personal apology.

The Tribunal found that the core records had been provided, the redactions were justified by litigation privilege, and the remaining issues were either minor or outside its jurisdiction.

The case was dismissed under Rule 19.1(a) of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal disputing the fees charged by the respondent condominium corporation for the production of non-core records.

The respondent had estimated a fee of $126 for four hours of labour to search and redact plumbing and water damage invoices.

The Tribunal found the estimated fee and hourly rate to be reasonable and consistent with the requirements of O. Reg. 48/01.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the estimated fee if she wished to receive the records.

No costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant filed a noise complaint with the Condominium Authority Tribunal against the respondents, who are the landlord and tenant of the unit above.

After acoustic testing showed soundproofing above industry standards, the applicant stopped participating in the mediation stage.

A Notice of Intent to Dismiss was issued due to inactivity.

The Tribunal found that the self-represented applicant had not abandoned her case but was struggling to navigate the process, and ordered that she be allowed 15 days to proceed to Stage 3.

The applicants filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding noise and vibration from a gym located above their unit.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to add seven individual residents as parties to the application, arguing they were responsible for the noise.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the dispute concerned the corporation's management of a shared element, not the individual residents, and that adding the individuals would delay the proceeding.