Stephen Roth

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding the procedure for records requests.

The agreement designated a specific employee at the condominium's management company to handle the applicant's requests.

The respondent subsequently changed its records request procedure, and the designated employee later resigned when the management company was acquired.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent technically breached the agreement before the employee's resignation, the breach was de minimis.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the specific term of the settlement agreement became frustrated and impossible to perform due to the employee's departure and the management company's acquisition.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The applicant condominium corporation alleged that the respondent unit owner breached a settlement agreement regarding his emotional support dog.

The agreement required the dog to wear an emotional support vest on common elements and for the respondent to provide proof of city registration.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the agreement by using a collar instead of a vest, and ordered compliance.

The Tribunal also found the respondent breached the registration provision but cured the breach during the hearing.

Costs of $875 were awarded to the applicant.

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

The respondent provided the records late and subsequently demanded $960.50 in legal fees related to the request, threatening a lien if unpaid.

The applicant paid under duress and applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for reimbursement.

The Tribunal found the respondent waived its right to charge a fee by failing to provide a fee estimate before producing the records.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to reimburse the $960.50 fee and the $9.95 cost of the money order.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty but directed the board members to complete mandatory training and ordered the respondent to amend its records policy to comply with the Condominium Act.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The case proceeded to Stage 2 mediation, and the applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3.

The applicant failed to advance the case within the required 15-day period.

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

The respondents in a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) application brought a motion to stay or adjourn the CAT proceeding pending the resolution of a related application they filed with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The underlying dispute involved the condominium corporation's enforcement of breed and weight restrictions against a resident's service dog.

The Tribunal applied the factors for staying multiple proceedings and found that the CAT application was ready to proceed, the HRTO application had not yet been served, and the CAT had jurisdiction to resolve the human rights issues.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 3.

The applicant subsequently 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 pursuant to Rule 43.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium owner requested the record of owners and mortgagees and the general ledger for repairs and maintenance from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to respond within the statutory 30-day period and initially failed to provide the older ledger records or a fee estimate for their retrieval from storage.

The Tribunal found the respondent's fee estimate of $167.60 for retrieving the older records was reasonable and that the respondent was entitled to redact references to specific units and owners.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $500 penalty for its initial refusal to provide the older records without a reasonable excuse, along with $75 in costs.

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

The applicant failed to participate in the mediation for over a month despite repeated requests.

After issuing a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and receiving no submissions from the applicant, the Tribunal found the case to be abandoned and ordered it dismissed pursuant to Rule 32.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant union sought to have its pay equity application remitted to Review Services rather than having the Tribunal determine the merits de novo.

The Tribunal held that it does not review the process or conduct of a Review Officer and hears matters de novo.

Because the applicant no longer sought a determination on the merits and the underlying application was four years old, the Tribunal dismissed the application without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a fresh application with Review Services.

The applicant filed an application under the Pay Equity Act asserting that her job class, Supervisor, Financial Services, was improperly valued and compared to an inappropriate male comparator following a reorganization that added to her duties.

The respondent argued that the applicant's position was re-evaluated using a gender-neutral comparison system under a deemed approved pay equity plan, and while it scored higher, it did not elevate to a higher band.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the evaluation ignored statutory criteria or was unreasonable.

The Tribunal emphasized that deemed approved plans are given deference and that a change in one job class's duties does not open a review of the entire plan.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a pay equity application alleging her position should have been included in the City's pay equity plan.

The City brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had executed a full and final release in 2013.

The applicant argued the settlement was repudiated because she did not receive a 1.9% cost of living adjustment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had elected to sue for damages in Small Claims Court rather than treat the contract as repudiated, and that the failure to pay the 1.9% adjustment did not amount to a substantial failure of performance.

The application was dismissed as barred by the release.