Dawn Wickett

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to permanently remove the respondents' dog from the premises for exceeding the 27-pound weight limit and causing a nuisance by urinating on common elements.

The respondents claimed the dog was an emotional support animal but provided insufficient evidence and failed to participate meaningfully in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the condominium board's decision to deem the dog a nuisance and order its removal was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The respondents were ordered to remove the dog and pay $4,180 in costs.

The applicant unit owner filed an application regarding noise and vibrations transferring into his unit, which he attributed to construction deficiencies and sought repairs.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the application related to repair and maintenance issues under sections 89 and 90 of the Condominium Act, which fall outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant's late allegations of human activity causing the noise were found to be a veiled attempt to keep the application within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The motion was granted and the application dismissed.

The applicant unit owner brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to respond to a request for records and refused to provide them without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal found that the respondent blatantly ignored its obligations under the Condominium Act, 1998, despite previous penalties for similar conduct.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the outstanding records, pay the maximum penalty of $5,000, and reimburse the applicant's legal costs and filing fees.

The Tribunal also ordered the current directors to retake the mandatory director training course.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

After the case proceeded to Stage 3, the applicant informed the Tribunal that the issues in dispute had been resolved and requested to withdraw the case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed under Rule 43.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, with standard confidentiality orders regarding settlement discussions.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent corporation failed to provide requested reserve fund records and failed to use the mandatory board response form.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had provided the requested general ledger within the prescribed 30-day period and that the audited financial statements contained adequate details.

Although the respondent failed to use the mandatory response form, no penalty was warranted as there was no refusal to provide records.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's records request application, arguing it was out of time under the two-year limitation period in the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the application was based on a recent records request from April 2023, not events from 2018, and was filed within the required timeframes under O. Reg. 48/01.

The Tribunal also held that it was premature to decide whether a penalty could be ordered before the conclusion of the hearing.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records and the mandatory board response form within the prescribed 30-day period.

The respondent provided the records shortly after the application was filed.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached its statutory obligations by responding late and failing to use the mandatory form, but declined to order a penalty as the delay was minimal and not a refusal without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal also found the provided invoice was adequate and declined to award costs to either party, resulting in no order being made.

The applicant unit owner applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation breached several terms of a prior settlement agreement, including failing to provide records and payment by the agreed deadlines, and breaching confidentiality.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached the deadlines for providing records and payment, though these were rectified shortly after the application was filed.

The Tribunal found no breach of confidentiality and held it lacked jurisdiction to impose penalties or reimburse record fees that were resolved by the settlement.

The respondent was ordered to reimburse the applicant's $125 filing fee.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondents, who reside in the unit directly above, created unreasonable noise and vibration.

The applicant provided noise logs and audio recordings demonstrating a pattern of yelling, loud music, and heavy walking that interfered with their quiet enjoyment.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' conduct violated section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation's rules.

The respondents were ordered to comply with the noise rules and to reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.

The applicant brought a motion requesting a confidentiality order to restrict public access to identifying information and the adjudicative record, citing concerns for physical safety and mental health.

The intervenor condominium corporation did not oppose the request but asked that the final decision not be sealed.

Applying the principles from Sherman Estate, the Tribunal granted the motion, ordering that the adjudicative record be restricted from public access and that the names of the applicant and their agent be anonymized in all decisions.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owners to permanently remove their dog from their unit due to ongoing violations of the corporation's rules and declaration.

The respondents failed to participate in the default proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the respondents allowed their dog to roam the common elements off-leash, relieve itself on common elements, and cause noise disturbances.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to remove the dog within 15 days and to pay the applicant's pre-hearing costs, Tribunal fees, and legal costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application against the condominium corporation, the owner of the unit above, and the occupant of that unit, alleging unreasonable noise.

The Tribunal found that the occupant created unreasonable noise constituting a nuisance, and that both the unit owner and the condominium corporation failed to take reasonable steps to enforce the corporation's governing documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to comply with the governing documents and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application alleging the respondent owner created a nuisance through hoarding, pest infestation, and odour, in violation of section 117(2) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal raised a preliminary issue regarding its jurisdiction, noting that allegations of fire risk and health and safety issues fall under section 117(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the application concerned health and safety issues, which are outside its jurisdiction, and that the odour issue could not be separated from the underlying hoarding and pest concerns.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding alleged nuisances from a neighbouring unit used as a short-term rental.

The matter proceeded as a default proceeding because the respondents did not join the case.

The Tribunal discovered that the applicant had improperly served the Notice of Case by posting it on the parties' doors, contrary to Rule 20.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, and had served the incorrect notices.

The Tribunal dismissed the application without prejudice under Rule 20.4 due to the improper service, which deprived the respondents of proper notice and their procedural right to mediation.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested copies of the condominium corporation's legal invoices from 2017 to 2022.

The respondent corporation denied the request, citing solicitor-client privilege and statutory exemptions under the Condominium Act.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to redacted copies of the invoices that show only the total amounts billed and paid, protecting privileged information while serving the open book principle.

The tribunal also determined the reasonable fees the respondent could charge for redacting and photocopying the records, and ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant's tribunal filing fee.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application alleging unreasonable nuisance and smoke odor caused by the respondent's tenant.

The Tribunal brought a motion to determine whether the tenant should be added as a party to the proceeding.

The Tribunal ordered that the tenant be added as a party because the requested remedy would directly affect his rights.

The Tribunal declined the applicant's request to add her parents as parties, noting they could participate as witnesses.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent breached a prior settlement agreement by failing to pay $75.

The parties agreed to settle the matter in Stage 3 of the Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to pay the $75 plus postage, as well as reimburse the applicant for the $125 filing fee.

The applicant, a unit owner and director of the respondent condominium corporation, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking access to corporate records to fulfill his duties as a director under section 37 of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal raised a preliminary issue regarding its jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The Tribunal found that its jurisdiction over record disputes is limited to requests made by owners solely related to their interests as owners.

Because the applicant sought the records to fulfill his directorial duties, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application without costs.

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

The applicant was given permission to move the matter to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fee within the prescribed 15-day period, despite a reminder from Tribunal staff.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the case closed and dismissed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to remove the respondent tenant's emotional support animal, a large dog, alleging the dog posed a safety risk due to lunging and barking incidents.

The Tribunal found that the incidents were minor, the dog was not aggressive, and the applicant failed to establish undue hardship.

The Tribunal also refused to enforce conditions unilaterally imposed by the applicant, finding the applicant breached its procedural duty to accommodate by failing to engage in good faith discussions with the respondent.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay 60% of the respondent's legal costs.