Anna Iordanidi

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application alleging the respondent breached a prior settlement agreement by continuing to smoke in her unit.

The respondent, an elderly resident with mobility issues, conceded the breach but cited difficulties accessing the outdoors due to her unit's door threshold.

The parties reached a consent order whereby the condominium corporation will arrange and partially fund modifications to the door, after which the respondent is strictly prohibited from smoking in her unit or on common elements.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to comply with a rule requiring pets to be carried or in a container while on common elements.

The respondent argued she was entitled to an accommodation under the Human Rights Code due to a physical disability that prevented her from carrying her dog.

The Tribunal found that the rule had a discriminatory effect on the respondent and ordered the condominium to accommodate her by allowing her to walk her dog on a short leash.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's claim for damages, finding no evidence that the condominium acted in bad faith or harassed her.

No costs were awarded.

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 brought a motion under Rule 46 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice to correct alleged factual errors in a previous decision dismissing their case.

The tribunal noted that Rule 46.3 requires such requests to be made within 30 days of receiving the decision.

Because the applicant brought the motion more than 30 days after receiving the decision and a previous motion order, the request was out of time.

The motion was denied without addressing the requested changes.

The applicant brought a motion to correct or clarify a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed their case regarding condominium records.

The applicant requested seven changes, primarily disagreeing with the Tribunal's findings of fact and characterizations of the issues, including the description of a water leak.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the requested changes were either substantive in nature, which is not permitted under Rule 46.7, or immaterial to the core issue of the records dispute.

The applicant unit owner sought records and a $5,000 penalty from the respondent condominium corporation regarding a chargeback for a toilet leak.

The applicant argued that more documentation should exist to justify the chargeback decision.

The Tribunal found the respondent's condominium manager credible in stating that all existing leak-related records had already been provided.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding there was no evidence the respondent refused to provide records without reasonable excuse.