Marisa Victor

The applicant condominium owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached several terms of a settlement agreement regarding the production of records and payment of settlement funds.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent breached one term by failing to provide specific board meeting minutes, but noted the breach was resolved during the proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for a penalty, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order penalties for settlement agreement breaches.

The applicant was awarded her $125 filing fee, and the respondent's request for substantial indemnity costs was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium owner, submitted requests for various core and non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent refused some records, citing exemptions under the Condominium Act, 1998, including actual or contemplated litigation.

The Tribunal found that while the application was not brought for an improper purpose overall, the request for two years of correspondence was a 'fishing expedition' and exempt.

The respondent was ordered to provide a redacted unit file and the April 1, 2022 Periodic Information Certificate.

A $100 penalty was imposed for the failure to provide the PIC, and the applicant was awarded $200 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for various corporate records, including board minutes, financial documents, and security video footage.

The applicant sought these records primarily to support her ongoing defamation and harassment claims in Small Claims Court against the condominium corporation and a past board member.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the request was made for an improper purpose, as it was not solely related to her interests as an owner as required by the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal also noted that the respondent had already provided many of the requested records and properly redacted others under statutory exemptions for ongoing litigation.

Costs of $300 plus HST were awarded to the respondent due to the applicant's voluminous submissions and improper use of the Tribunal process.

The applicants, unit owners living below the condominium's gym, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding unreasonable noise and vibration caused by the dropping of free weights.

The Tribunal found that the dropping of weights constituted a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, particularly during early morning and late evening hours.

The Tribunal concluded that the condominium corporation had permitted the activity by failing to adequately investigate or restrict the use of free weights.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to restrict the use of free weights to between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and awarded the applicants their $200 filing fee.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to adjourn a Condominium Authority Tribunal hearing regarding a records request, pending the outcome of two related Small Claims Court cases.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing she needed the records for her Small Claims cases.

The Tribunal denied the motion to adjourn, finding that the CAT case was near completion, its resolution would not depend on the Small Claims cases, and an indefinite abeyance would not promote a fair, timely, and efficient resolution.

The applicants, unit owners in a condominium, filed an application regarding unreasonable noise and vibration from the gym located above their units.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute involved personal injury, repair of common elements, operational governance decisions, and noise from a different corporation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the core of the dispute was a noise nuisance complaint under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, which falls squarely within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent failed to establish that the application was clearly outside its jurisdiction at this preliminary stage.

The applicant, a penthouse unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that unreasonable noise from the mechanical room above his unit caused a nuisance.

The respondent condominium corporation had spent approximately $40,000 on engineering investigations and repairs to address the noise.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the functioning of the mechanical room is not an 'activity' within the meaning of section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and that the complaint fundamentally related to the corporation's duty to maintain and repair the common elements, which falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The appellant condominium corporation requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision which found that storage lockers in its parking garage violated the Ontario Fire Code.

The appellant argued the Commission breached procedural fairness by not making individual locker owners parties to the appeal, and erred in its statutory interpretation of the Fire Code and Building Code.

The Commission dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that individual owners must initiate an appeal or seek party status to be included, and that no errors of law or fact were made in the original decision regarding fire separation requirements.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant unit owner's application regarding allegedly misleading parking signage.

The respondent argued the Condominium Authority Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the dispute related to maintenance and repair or the physical placement of signs, rather than provisions governing parking.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that a complaint about confusing parking signs is a dispute about the communication of rules, not a dispute relating to provisions in the governing documents that prohibit, restrict, or govern parking.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Fire Marshal review decision confirming an inspection order that required the removal of household items from wire-caged storage lockers located in an underground parking garage.

The appellant argued that the individual locker owners should have been made parties, that the storage complied with the Ontario Fire Code, and that an exemption applied because the lockers complied with the Ontario Building Code.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness in not adding the individual owners.

The Commission held that the Fire Code requires parking garages to be fire-separated from the rest of the building, meaning household items cannot be stored in unseparated lockers.

The Commission also found insufficient evidence that the lockers complied with the Building Code, as approved drawings only permitted bicycle storage.

The review decision was amended to expressly permit bicycle storage and to extend the compliance date.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondents to comply with its rules respecting smoking.

The parties reached a settlement during the mediation stage of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution process.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the occupant to immediately comply with the smoking rules and the owner to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance, along with an order for costs of $3,000 payable to the applicant.

The applicant, a self-represented condominium owner, brought a motion to disqualify the respondent condominium corporation's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest and civil fraud.

The applicant argued that counsel was in a conflict because a colleague at his law firm was a member of the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to disqualify counsel to prevent an abuse of process under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and its Rules of Practice.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no clear evidence of a conflict of interest, as the Tribunal member had no involvement in the case and institutional safeguards were in place, nor was there any evidence of fraud.

The appellants appealed an Inspection Order issued by the Kitchener Fire Department under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The order alleged that the appellants' nine-bedroom student rental property violated the Ontario Fire Code by creating a hazard not allowed for in the original design.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the Inspection Order failed to provide valid reasons related to fire safety or specific Fire Code violations, improperly relying instead on zoning and building code issues outside the Commission's jurisdiction.

The Commission rescinded the Inspection Order.

The appellants appealed two inspection orders issued by the Brockville Fire Department regarding a mixed-use condominium building.

The orders required the removal of door stops from fire separation doors and the removal of combustible furniture from the residential lobby and corridors.

The Fire Safety Commission upheld the order regarding the door stops, finding that they impermissibly wedge open and alter fire separations in violation of the Ontario Fire Code.

However, the Commission rescinded the order regarding the combustible furniture, finding that the furniture was placed in spaces specifically designed for it, which is permitted under the Code.

During mediation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal, the respondent advised the self-represented applicant that another condominium corporation needed to be added to the proceeding due to a shared facilities agreement.

The parties consented to the addition.

The Tribunal ordered the current case closed and directed the applicant to open a new case including both respondents, with the new case proceeding directly to Stage 2 mediation at no additional cost to the applicant.

The appellant appealed two inspection orders issued by the Smith Falls Fire Department regarding multiple alleged Fire Code violations at a large, multi-building complex.

The parties settled most issues, leaving seven items for the Fire Safety Commission to determine.

The Commission confirmed the orders requiring a fire separation for the theatrical stage, repairs to ensure certain fire separation doors close and latch, the maintenance of standpipe testing records, and the installation of exit signage.

The Commission rescinded the orders regarding two sets of doors, finding they were not required fire separations because they did not open onto public corridors or were not originally built as fire separations.

The appellant, a residential tenant with a mobility disability, installed a chairlift on a shared interior exit stairway.

The local fire department issued an inspection order requiring its removal, citing a violation of the Ontario Fire Code requirement that means of egress remain free of obstructions.

The appellant appealed to the Fire Safety Commission, arguing the chairlift was necessary for accessibility and did not impede passage.

The Commission upheld the order, finding that the chairlift significantly reduced the stairway width and constituted an obstruction that could delay or impede occupants and firefighters during a fire emergency.

The compliance date was extended to allow the appellant time to find alternative accommodations or propose an alternative solution.

The appellant tenant brought a motion for costs against the respondent fire services, alleging the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith by informally suggesting an appeal was no longer necessary shortly before a scheduled case conference.

The appellant claimed $1,000 for mental distress and for having to attend the case conference.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding the respondent's actions in updating the Commission on the status of the inspection order were entirely proper and did not meet the high threshold for a costs award under the Common Rules.

The appellant appealed a Review Order from the Fire Marshal requiring fire safety upgrades to her student rental property under section 9.3 of the Ontario Fire Code.

At the time of the initial inspection, the building housed five tenants, but the appellant subsequently reduced the occupancy to four tenants with no intention of renting the remaining rooms.

The Fire Safety Commission found that because lodging was no longer provided for more than four persons, section 9.3 of the Fire Code did not apply.

The items under appeal from the Review Order were rescinded.

The Hamilton Fire Department appealed a Review Order of the Ontario Fire Marshal that found exit doors opening onto a fire escape complied with the Ontario Fire Code.

The respondent, who had sold the building prior to the hearing, did not appear.

The Fire Safety Commission found the appeal was not moot because a live controversy remained regarding the physical composition of the doors.

The Commission rescinded the Review Order, finding the exit doors did not meet the 20-minute fire rating requirement under the Ontario Fire Code.