Michael Clifton

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

Prior to the Stage 3 Tribunal Decision, 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 without costs, noting that all settlement-related communications remain confidential.

The applicant, a unit owner and licensed paralegal, requested the condominium corporation's most recent unaudited monthly financial statement.

The corporation initially refused to provide the record, mistakenly believing it was not obligated to do so because it was a non-core record.

The Tribunal found this refusal was without reasonable excuse and ordered a $500 penalty against the corporation.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to an unredacted copy of the record and lacked jurisdiction to order personal liability against the directors.

Due to the applicant's unreasonable conduct and escalating demands during the proceedings, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay $2,327.12 in costs to the corporation, while awarding the applicant $75 for Tribunal fees.

The applicant alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding visitor parking rules.

The applicant claimed the corporation failed to provide required written notice to owners, proposed a new rule that contradicted the settlement, and delayed reimbursing owners for cancelled parking tickets.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation's notice satisfied the settlement terms and the proposed rule did not contravene the agreement.

While the reimbursements were delayed, the Tribunal found this breach to be minor and moot.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant, a unit owner, challenged the respondent condominium corporation's visitor parking rules, enforcement practices, and record retention methods.

The applicant had repeatedly parked her vehicle in visitor parking spaces, leading the respondent to issue compliance letters and a chargeback for legal fees.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the visitor parking rules were reasonable and enforceable, and that the applicant had violated them.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's enforcement practices were reasonable and denied the applicant's request for records, as it was made to avoid enforcement.

The applicant was ordered to comply with the parking rules and pay $2,600 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for records to the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to provide a proper response, demanded unreasonable fees, and eventually ceased participating in the Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal found that while several of the applicant's requests were overly broad 'fishing expeditions', she was entitled to complaints and investigative reports relating specifically to her unit.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide these records subject to a reasonable fee estimate, and awarded a $1,200 penalty against the respondent for refusing records without a reasonable excuse, along with $200 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed a records request for board meeting minutes, photos, and videos related to a water leak and subsequent chargeback.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent corporation did not refuse to provide records without reasonable excuse, as it was unaware of one video's existence and faced technical issues delivering another.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to deliver the remaining video and provide corrected copies of improperly redacted board minutes.

No penalties or costs were awarded.

The applicant unit owner sought draft reserve fund studies and alleged that the respondent condominium corporation's financial records were inadequate.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal held that draft documents do not constitute records of the corporation under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998, and denied the request for drafts and a penalty.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent's records relating to reserve fund planning and garage repairs were inadequate because they failed to provide clear and consistent information.

The respondent was ordered to provide a detailed report on garage expenditures, but no costs were awarded.

The applicant filed two cases against the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent joined only the first case.

Both parties agreed that the subject matter of both cases was sufficiently related and should be merged in the interest of fairness and efficiency.

The Tribunal ordered the second case closed and merged with the first case pursuant to Rule 18.2 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order prohibiting the respondent unit owners from using their parking units for storage.

The respondents had installed garage doors and used the spaces for storage for 30 years, relying on a condominium rule.

Following a fire inspection order, the condominium sought to enforce its declaration, which restricted parking units to parking motor vehicles.

The Tribunal found that the declaration clearly prohibited storage and that the rule permitting it was inconsistent with the declaration and therefore invalid.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to remove all storage items within 60 days and awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation and respondent owner reached a settlement in Stage 2 Mediation regarding the conduct of the respondent's tenant (the intervenor).

The intervenor failed to participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal waived Rule 34.3 to allow the consent order to proceed without the intervenor's participation.

The consent order requires the respondent to ensure its tenant complies with the Condominium Act and governing documents, and to issue an N5 eviction notice if further complaints regarding noise or harassment are received.

The applicant condominium owner sought orders against the respondent condominium corporation regarding an intruder who frequently entered the building, causing noise, smoke, and odour disturbances.

The applicant also alleged the corporation failed to maintain a make-up air unit, exacerbating the smoke infiltration.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the intruder's conduct did not amount to a legal nuisance, it constituted a prohibited annoyance under subsection 117(2) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal held that the corporation's efforts to address the intruder were reasonable but ultimately ineffective, and ordered the corporation to increase its security and enforcement measures, including providing monthly progress reports to the applicant.

The claim regarding the make-up air unit was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, complained of unreasonable noise and vibration from the underground garage doors located directly beneath her unit.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter under the condominium's declaration, which prohibited conditions causing unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of units.

Relying on engineering reports, the Tribunal concluded that the noise and vibration constituted an unreasonable annoyance or nuisance.

The respondent condominium corporation was ordered to replace the garage door system with a quieter one and to pay compensation and costs to the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation sought compliance orders and costs against a unit owner and her tenant granddaughter regarding noise, garbage, and pet-related nuisances.

The Tribunal found that while the tenant was likely a victim of controlling individuals who caused the noise, the respondents were still responsible for the ongoing garbage and pet rule breaches.

The Tribunal ordered compliance with the rules but declined to award administrative fees and only awarded partial indemnity for legal costs, noting that the condominium corporation improperly attempted to enforce compliance costs via lien without a prior order.

The applicant unit owner sought to enforce a settlement agreement requiring the respondent condominium corporation to declare and ratify previously unrecorded financial decisions at a board meeting.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had breached the settlement agreement.

However, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order compliance because the underlying issue—corporate governance procedures and the ratification of decisions made outside of board meetings—falls outside the Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction over records disputes.

The application was dismissed, but the respondent was ordered to reimburse the applicant's filing fee.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a case against the respondent unit owners for ongoing complaints about noise, smoke, unauthorized pets, and other nuisances caused by the residents and guests of their unit.

The respondents did not meaningfully participate in the proceedings.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the conduct breached the condominium's declaration and rules, as well as the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately cease the prohibited conduct and to pay the applicant's costs and compensation for legal expenses incurred.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce its parking rules to prevent the respondent unit owners from temporarily parking their boat on their common element driveway on summer weekends, a practice they had maintained for over 30 years.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the respondents technically breached the rules, the rules themselves were overbroad and did not satisfy the substantive criteria of section 58 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Furthermore, the tribunal held that the condominium's long-term acquiescence and the de minimis nature of the breach precluded enforcement.

The application was dismissed, and the respondents were permitted to continue their practice subject to safety conditions, with no costs awarded.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against a tenant and the unit owner for breaches of the condominium rules and the Condominium Act, 1998, relating to unreasonable noise, unauthorized parking, and improper storage of materials on common elements.

The tenant did not participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the tenant consistently breached the rules and ordered her to cease the offending conduct.

The Tribunal declined to order costs against the unit owner, finding she had made reasonable efforts to address the tenant's behavior and had already paid a portion of the legal fees.

The tenant was ordered to pay $3,870.38 in costs to the condominium corporation.

The applicant condominium corporation sought orders against a unit owner and his tenant regarding persistent noise, nuisances, and abusive behaviour towards staff by the tenant and his co-resident.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the tenant's conduct violated the condominium's declaration and rules.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to cease all disruptive conduct and ordered the owner to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance.

The owner and tenant were ordered to jointly and severally pay $18,239.60 in compensation, and the owner was ordered to pay an additional $8,551.50 in costs due to his failure to address the tenant's non-compliance.

The applicant brought an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement by failing to provide complete board meeting minutes.

The respondent sought to dismiss the case for delay and lack of standing, as the applicant was a tenant, not the registered owner.

The Tribunal found the applicant acted in good faith regarding the delay and had standing as a party to the settlement agreement.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the merits, finding the respondent did not breach the agreement because it was only required to provide records it actually possessed, and there was no evidence the missing topics were ever discussed or recorded in any minutes.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a case to enforce pet provisions against the respondent.

The respondent sought accommodation under the Human Rights Code to keep her dog and requested a confidentiality order to protect her privacy regarding the reasons for the accommodation.

The Tribunal granted the confidentiality order, noting the applicant's consent and the need to protect the respondent's dignity and well-being, sealing specific exhibits and online hearing message threads.