Angad Singh

The applicants, condominium unit owners, brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the corporation's replacement of the garage doors caused unreasonable noise and vibration in their unit.

The corporation argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the issue related to repair and maintenance rather than a prohibited activity.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the noise was not caused by an activity under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, nor did the corporation's declaration regarding nuisance apply to the corporation itself.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed two separate applications with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding requests for records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties consented to joining the two cases to be heard by the same Tribunal Member.

The Tribunal ordered that the earlier records request be added to the later case file and closed the earlier case file, with only the outstanding issues carrying forward for determination.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to address unreasonable noise from other units, contrary to s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Near the end of the hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw the case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal with prejudice under Rule 43.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, noting the respondent had no objection.

The case was closed and the applicant is barred from refiling on these issues.

The applicant condominium owner submitted requests for records, including board meeting minutes, to the respondent condominium corporation.

The applicant alleged the corporation refused to provide records, failed to keep adequate records, and improperly redacted minutes, seeking a penalty and costs.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation provided all available records, had a reasonable excuse for missing historical minutes, and resolved redaction issues during mediation.

The application was dismissed with no penalty or costs awarded.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought various records from the respondent condominium corporation, including AGM video recordings, an LED lighting rebate application, and security video footage of an altercation with the property manager.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the requested records either did not exist, were not records of the corporation, or had already been provided.

Consequently, there was no refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse.

However, because some records from an earlier request were only provided during mediation, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $75 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant filed two cases with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request and issues with a Periodic Information Certificate.

The matters were merged and proceeded to mediation.

The applicant failed to move the matter to Stage 3 within the permitted time despite reminders.

The Tribunal ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent failed to provide all requested records, charged inappropriate fees for core records, and provided inadequate invoices.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide certain meeting minutes without reasonable excuse, warranting a $400 penalty, and improperly charged $307.60 for core records, which must be reimbursed.

However, the Tribunal held that the recreated notices of lease and the third-party invoices provided were adequate under the Condominium Act.

The applicant was awarded her $200 filing fee, but her request for $4,000 in costs for time spent was denied.

The respondent brought a motion to reopen a Condominium Authority Tribunal case over seven months after a default decision was issued against him for failing to participate.

He argued that he was on medical leave due to emotional and mental distress.

The Tribunal applied the factors for reopening a case and found that the respondent's medical notes did not justify his extended failure to engage with the Tribunal or seek accommodations.

The motion to reopen was dismissed due to the unjustified delay and the importance of finality in proceedings.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

After the case proceeded to Stage 2 mediation, the applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fee within 15 days.

The Tribunal ordered the case closed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent corporation failed to provide requested records relating to a lobby renovation.

The respondent had provided the reserve fund study but withheld correspondence with legal consultants, citing the litigation exemption under s. 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act and solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal found that the withheld records were protected by solicitor-client privilege and the litigation exemption, and that some requested records did not exist.

The application was dismissed without costs or penalties.

The applicant, a condominium owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records, provided overly redacted records, and failed to keep adequate records.

The Tribunal found that the corporation did not refuse to provide records without reasonable excuse, as the redactions were appropriate to protect privacy and the missing records were due to an oversight or a previous management company's failure to transfer them.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the corporation was failing to keep adequate records.

The substantive claims were dismissed, but the corporation was ordered to pay $75 as partial reimbursement of the applicant's Tribunal fees.