Patricia McQuaid

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to comply with its non-smoking rule.

The respondent, who had previously benefited from a legacy exemption that expired in 2020, argued the rule was unreasonable and improperly enacted.

The Tribunal found that the rule was properly enacted, reasonable, and within the board's authority under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to immediately comply with the rule and refrain from smoking in her unit.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to comply with noise and nuisance rules, alleging the respondent played music at excessive volumes.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing but had previously claimed the music was to drown out noises from neighbours.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the respondent's conduct constituted an unreasonable nuisance in violation of the condominium's declaration, rules, and section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease creating excessive noise and to pay $5,805 in costs and compensation to the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner and his tenant to cease smoking in their unit and on exclusive use common elements due to smoke migration.

The respondent had a legacy exemption allowing him to smoke, provided he took reasonable steps to prevent smoke migration.

The Tribunal found that smoke continued to migrate to the common elements and other units, and the respondent failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent and his tenant to immediately cease smoking in the unit and on the exclusive use common elements, and ordered the respondent to pay $2,500 in compensation and $3,200 in costs.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, sought an order prohibiting their neighbours from smoking inside and outside their unit, alleging the smoke migration constituted a nuisance.

They also sought an order compelling the condominium corporation to enforce its governing documents.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the condominium corporation had taken reasonable steps to investigate and mitigate the smoke migration, including retaining engineers and completing sealing work.

The Tribunal concluded that the remaining smoke did not constitute an unreasonable nuisance under the Condominium Act, as smoking was not prohibited by the corporation's rules.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium corporation alleged that the respondent commercial tenant was parking or storing vehicles on the common elements in violation of the condominium's declaration and rules.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent removed three of the five vehicles, leaving two commercial vehicles with snowplow attachments.

The Tribunal found that the presence of the two remaining vehicles did not violate the rules or unreasonably interfere with other owners' use of the common elements.

However, because the respondent's earlier non-compliance caused the applicant to incur legal costs to secure compliance, the Tribunal ordered the intervenor unit owner to pay $903.05 in compensation and $150 in Tribunal costs.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against the respondent owners and their tenant for excessive noise and nuisance.

The owners settled with the corporation, but the tenant did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the tenant had created unreasonable noise in violation of the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules.

The tenant was ordered to comply with the rules and pay $2,125 in costs to the corporation.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order directing the respondent unit owner to comply with noise rules.

The corporation alleged the respondent deliberately created loud banging sounds on plumbing pipes, disturbing other residents.

The respondent failed to participate in the hearing after multiple adjournment requests were denied.

Relying on resident testimony and an independent acoustic engineering report, the Tribunal found the respondent breached the condominium's declaration and rules, as well as s. 117(2)(a) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent was ordered to cease creating the noise and to pay $5,150 in costs.

The applicant unit owner applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding unreasonable banging noises from the building's plumbing system.

The applicant argued the noise interfered with her peaceful enjoyment of the property.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the issue related to the corporation's obligation to repair and maintain common elements under section 89 of the Condominium Act, rather than an activity creating unreasonable noise under section 117(2).

As the Tribunal's jurisdiction over noise is limited to activities carried on in a unit or common elements, it lacked jurisdiction to order a remedy for structural or plumbing defects.

The applicant condominium owner sought damages from the respondent neighbour for the cost of an air purifier, alleging the respondent breached the condominium's smoking rule.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The condominium corporation intervened but took no position.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's continued smoking and failure to prevent smoke migration violated the rules and compelled the applicant to purchase the air purifier.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $2,485.99 in damages and $150 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent unit owner breached the declaration and rules regarding noise, smoking, and nuisance.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent contravened the governing documents by smoking in common elements and creating excessive noise.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the rules and pay $450 in compensation for pre-litigation compliance costs, plus $1,400 in legal costs and tribunal fees.

The applicant, a condominium owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records in a timely manner and failed to use the prescribed Board Response forms.

The applicant sought a $5,000 penalty.

The Tribunal found that while some records were provided late, the respondent had a reasonable excuse due to a change in property management, and thus no penalty was warranted.

However, the Tribunal found that the record of owners and mortgagees and the record of notices of leases were inadequate.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the adequate records, directed the condominium board to retake mandatory director training, and awarded the applicant $200 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought full indemnity for legal costs incurred to enforce a no-smoking rule against the respondent unit owner.

The substantive issues were resolved by a consent order in which the respondent agreed to comply with the rule.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was entitled to some costs under the indemnification provisions of its by-laws and rules, the amounts claimed were disproportionate to the straightforward nature of the dispute.

The Tribunal awarded $2,500 for pre-Tribunal legal costs and $2,275 for Tribunal-related costs and fees.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against a unit owner for alleged inappropriate conduct related to parking and nuisance.

The respondent had parked his vehicle in a manner that impeded the corporation's snow removal operations, forcing the corporation to incur costs for off-site snow storage.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent did not breach the specific parking rules cited, his actions in impeding snow removal constituted a nuisance under the corporation's declaration.

The respondent was ordered to comply with the declaration and to reimburse the corporation for the additional snow removal costs, legal compliance costs, and a portion of the Tribunal proceeding costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought original draft minutes and audio recordings of the corporation's AGMs to prove alleged inaccuracies in the approved minutes.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal held that original draft minutes are a work product and not records of the corporation.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant was not entitled to the audio recordings because the request was not made for a purpose related to his interests as an owner having regard to the purposes of the Condominium Act, but rather to pursue a personal dispute over minor wording preferences.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring the production of bank statements.

The respondent provided the records shortly after the agreed-upon deadline.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had complied with the agreement, albeit late, and that the delay was minor and resulted from confusion over the method of delivery.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application alleging the respondent unit owner and her tenant failed to comply with a declaration prohibiting Doberman dogs.

The tenant kept a dog that appeared to be a Doberman mix, and the owner failed to provide veterinary documentation confirming the breed when requested.

The Tribunal found noncompliance with the declaration and ordered the removal of the dog within 21 days, unless a satisfactory letter from a licensed veterinarian confirming the dog is not a prohibited breed is provided.

The respondent was also ordered to pay $1,700 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application regarding alleged noise disturbances caused by the respondent unit owner.

The respondent requested an adjournment of over three months for medical reasons, supported by a doctor's note.

The applicant opposed a lengthy adjournment without an interim order prohibiting the noise.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on terms, requiring the respondent to provide an updated medical note and stipulating that the adjournment would be lifted if other cases initiated by the respondent proceeded.

The request for an interim order was denied as it would effectively determine the main issue in dispute.

The applicant condominium corporation alleged that the respondent tenant and intervenor owners failed to comply with the condominium declaration by parking an oversized truck that protruded beyond the boundaries of their parking unit.

The respondents did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that while the truck initially protruded beyond the boundaries, the respondents had adjusted its position prior to the hearing such that any remaining noncompliance was negligible.

The Tribunal declined to order strict compliance but ordered the intervenors to reimburse the applicant's $150 filing fee, as the application was necessary at the time it was filed.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application regarding the respondent owner's storage of items and parking on common elements.

The respondent brought a motion for early dismissal, arguing the applicant's board lacked quorum to bring the application and that the issue was res judicata.

The applicant consented to the dismissal based on the lack of quorum, acknowledging that one of its two board members had ceased to be a director for failing to complete mandatory training.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the application.

The applicant condominium corporation alleged that the respondent unit owners failed to comply with its rules by allowing their vehicle to leak oil onto their exclusive use parking space, causing damage.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondents breached the rules by permitting the parking space to become coated with oil and refusing access for cleaning and repair.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to provide access to the parking space and to reimburse the corporation for the repair costs, reasonable pre-litigation legal compliance costs, and Tribunal fees, but denied the corporation's claim for full legal and engineering costs.