Mary Ann Spencer

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondents to permanently remove their dog from the premises after it bit another resident's dog.

The condominium board had declared the dog a nuisance and ordered its removal.

The Tribunal found that the board did not conduct a reasonable investigation into the incident and relied on insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal noted the dog had since been muzzled, leashed, and trained, and there were no further incidents.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the respondents due to its failure to attempt pre-hearing resolution and its unreasonable conduct.

The applicant, a condominium owner, submitted a request for records seeking copies of engineering reports related to well data collection, humidity probes, and weeping tile scoping.

The respondent condominium corporation refused the request, stating the documents were not records of the corporation.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents were preliminary data collection reports prepared by a subcontractor for the corporation's retained engineering firm, and had not yet been reviewed or accepted by the board.

Consequently, the documents were not yet records of the corporation under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The application was dismissed without penalty or costs.

The applicant in a condominium noise dispute brought a motion to file a late acoustical report after the document disclosure deadline had passed.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing prejudice and delay, while the intervenor did not object.

The Tribunal applied the test for late evidence, finding that while the report could have been obtained earlier, its potential probative value regarding whether the noise was unreasonable justified its admission.

The Tribunal granted the motion, noting that the respondent would not be unduly prejudiced and could request an adjournment to respond.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring a tenant to cease smoking cannabis in his unit, alleging the resulting smoke and odour violated the condominium's declaration and the Condominium Act.

The tenant did not participate in the hearing.

The unit owner supported the corporation's application and demonstrated he had taken reasonable steps to obtain the tenant's compliance, including issuing an eviction notice.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the tenant in violation of the declaration and ordered him to immediately cease smoking cannabis in the unit.

The Tribunal also ordered the tenant to pay $150 in costs and $450 in compensation to the corporation.

In a dispute over a condominium board's order to remove a dangerous dog, the respondents brought a motion to add the owner of the attacked dog as a party.

The respondents argued the owner's negligence caused the incident and she should be liable for costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the core issue was the reasonableness of the board's decision, and the owner of the attacked dog had no direct interest or liability for costs that would justify adding her as a party.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent owner to comply with its noise rules and to pay costs incurred in enforcing compliance.

The respondent repeatedly played loud music with heavy bass late at night, generating numerous security complaints, and ignored multiple warning letters from management and legal counsel.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the respondent in violation of the noise rules and section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the rules and awarded the corporation full indemnity for its legal costs and pre-litigation legal expenses, totaling $9,848.51.

The applicant condominium owner requested various non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided some records but failed to provide others, claiming they could not be located due to poor record-keeping by previous management.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to keep adequate records as required by section 55(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $1,500 penalty for refusing to provide records without reasonable excuse, reimburse $367.50 in excessive fees charged for the records, provide missing bank statements, and pay $200 in costs.

The applicant brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation for an order requiring it to enforce its noise rule against the owner of the unit above hers.

The respondent brought a motion to add the upstairs unit owner as a respondent or intervenor.

The Tribunal found that while the corporation was the proper respondent, the upstairs unit owner could be directly impacted by the decision.

The Tribunal ordered that the upstairs unit owner be added as an intervenor.

In a condominium dispute, personal medical information was submitted as evidence.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal reviewed the information and found it to be highly sensitive.

Pursuant to Rule 21.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal issued a confidentiality order, deeming specific exhibits confidential and excluding them from the public record to protect the individuals' privacy.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order requiring the respondent owner to remove her dog from her unit, citing the corporation's 'no pet' declaration and rules.

The respondent argued the dog was an emotional support animal and sought accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient medical evidence establishing a disability that required accommodation.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to permanently remove the dog within 14 days and to pay $200 in Tribunal costs, though it declined to award the corporation its legal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent owner to permanently remove an unregistered cat from her unit, alleging the cat caused damage to the common element balconies by urinating on them.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent in violation of the condominium's declaration and rules, which only permitted 'grandfathered' pets.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to remove the cat, prohibited her from acquiring additional pets, and ordered her to pay the corporation's legal and Tribunal costs, as well as 50% of the costs to repair the damaged balcony.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent tenant to permanently remove his two dogs from the premises due to persistent noise complaints and aggressive behaviour.

The tenant argued the dogs were service animals and the complaints were exaggerated.

The Tribunal found the tenant in persistent breach of the corporation's pet nuisance rules and ordered the dogs removed.

The Tribunal also ordered the tenant to pay the majority of the corporation's legal costs, while the respondent landlord was ordered to pay pre-litigation costs pursuant to the corporation's indemnification provisions, as he had made reasonable efforts to obtain the tenant's compliance.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal requesting an accessible parking space for his spouse and challenging the reassignment of parking spots.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the case, arguing the issues were resolved because the applicant's spouse had passed away and the parking spots had been reassigned according to the survey.

The Tribunal found the issues were moot and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal also awarded $1,000 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant's unreasonable behaviour in raising irrelevant issues.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal after the respondent condominium corporation failed to respond to his request for records relating to common element deficiencies.

The respondent's new condominium manager appeared at the hearing and indicated she was compiling the records but provided no excuse for the delay.

The Tribunal found that the delay constituted a refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested records at no cost, assessed a penalty of $1,500 against the respondent, and awarded the applicant $150 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to respond to a request for financial records and records of the mathematical calculation used to determine common expenses.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide the records without reasonable excuse, noting the delay in providing them until the hearing stage.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the outstanding records or confirm they do not exist, and awarded the applicant a $500 penalty and $200 in costs.

The applicant unit owner filed an application challenging the validity of an amendment to the condominium corporation's declaration regarding animals, alleging procedural non-compliance with the Condominium Act.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute was solely about process and the applicant lacked standing due to failing to register a corporate name change.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the applicant had standing as a registered owner and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider procedural matters when determining the validity of a declaration provision governing animals.

The applicant, a condominium owner, sought the repeal of a rule restricting pets from the building's front lobby, arguing it was unreasonable and inconsistent with the declaration.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that a 2019 amendment easing the restriction was invalid due to procedural non-compliance, making the stricter 2017 rule the current version.

The Tribunal held that the 2017 rule was reasonable, consistent with the declaration, and enacted to address legitimate issues with pet waste and altercations.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The applicant condominium owner and the respondent condominium corporation reached a settlement regarding a request for records.

The parties requested that their agreement be incorporated into a consent order.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued the consent order, requiring the respondent to provide the requested records and reimburse the applicant's $75 filing fee, and requiring the applicant to use the proper forms for future requests.

The applicant condominium owner requested copies of board meeting minutes from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided some minutes but missed others due to a change in property management companies and administrative oversight.

The applicant sought a penalty against the respondent for refusing to provide the records without reasonable excuse.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent did not intentionally withhold the records and that the failure was due to administrative oversight.

The request for a penalty was dismissed, but the applicant was awarded $210 in costs for the earlier stages of the proceeding.

The applicant condominium owner requested electronic copies of the respondents' Record of Owners and Mortgagees.

The respondents provided the records but redacted the e-mail addresses of owners and mortgagees, citing confidentiality.

The applicant applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order directing the respondents to provide the e-mail addresses and for a penalty.

The Tribunal held that e-mail addresses do not form part of the Record of Owners and Mortgagees under section 46.1 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Furthermore, even if they did, section 55(4) of the Act and O. Reg. 48/01 explicitly exclude the record of the method of electronic communication from the records an owner is entitled to examine.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.