Anne Gottlieb

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owners to comply with its rules regarding visitor parking and smoking.

The tribunal found that the respondents had contravened the rules by repeatedly parking their vehicles in visitor parking spaces.

However, the tribunal dismissed the claim regarding smoking, finding insufficient evidence that the smoke caused an unreasonable nuisance, annoyance, or disruption as required by the Condominium Act.

The tribunal ordered the respondents to cease parking in visitor spaces and to pay damages and costs to the corporation.

The applicant, a condominium owner, filed an application against the condominium corporation alleging it failed to enforce its rules regarding unreasonable noise from the unit above.

The applicant claimed that construction and flooring impact noise constituted a substantial nuisance and sought orders for acoustic testing and rule enforcement.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the noise from the unit above was unreasonable or violated the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal also found that the condominium corporation had taken reasonable steps to investigate the complaints, including conducting patrols and in-suite inspections.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium owner requested core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to provide the records or a board response within the required timeframe, only providing them after significant delay and after tribunal proceedings had commenced.

The tribunal found the delay constituted a refusal without reasonable excuse and ordered the respondent to pay a $750 penalty and $200 in costs.

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 brought a case to the Condominium Authority Tribunal to clarify the use of his exclusive-use parking spaces at the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties agreed to settle the matter during the mediation stage.

The Tribunal issued a consent order permitting the applicant to park his vehicle in his designated space, subject to specific size, safety, and insurance conditions, and ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The applicant brought a case to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent violated condominium rules regarding pets and noise.

The parties reached a consent order during Stage 2 Mediation.

The tribunal ordered the condominium corporation to investigate any future complaints from the applicant regarding the respondent and to consider enforcement steps if necessary.

The applicant condominium owner requested a list of owners and mortgagees from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided three different versions of the list, which were either incomplete or confusingly formatted.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the respondent did not refuse to provide the records, the records provided were inadequate.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide a properly formatted list and awarded the applicant $200 in costs, but declined to order a penalty.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against a unit owner and its occupants for breaching the corporation's parking and no-pet rules.

The occupants parked multiple vehicles in spaces assigned to other units and kept a dog on the property despite a strict no-pet rule, claiming the dog was a service animal.

The Tribunal found the occupants violated the parking rules and failed to provide evidence supporting the need for a service animal accommodation.

The Tribunal ordered the occupants to comply with the parking rules, permanently remove the dog, and pay $6,700 in costs.

The applicant unit owner sought various condominium records from the respondent corporation, alleging a refusal to provide them without reasonable excuse.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation failed to provide an accurate list of owners and mortgagees and ordered it to do so, along with notices of leases and by-laws once ratified.

The Tribunal upheld the corporation's redactions of proxies and bank statements as compliant with the Condominium Act.

The corporation was ordered to pay a $1,000 penalty for its refusal to provide the owners list, $200 in costs, and its directors were ordered to retake mandatory training.

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

The records were provided after a minor delay caused by the property manager's absence and email delivery issues.

The applicant sought a $2,000 penalty, arguing the delay and the withholding of unapproved draft minutes constituted a refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the minor delay did not amount to a refusal and that draft minutes are not records of the corporation until approved.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested several records from the respondent condominium corporation, including an incident report, rental agreements, and AGM materials.

The respondent refused the incident report citing the contemplated litigation exemption and provided fee estimates for redacting the AGM materials.

The Tribunal found that the incident report did not fall under the litigation exemption and ordered its production.

The Tribunal also found the proposed redaction fees excessive, reducing the hourly rate and estimated hours.

The applicant's request for a penalty was dismissed, but she was awarded $200 in costs for filing fees.

The applicant condominium owner requested five non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent denied the request, citing the exemption for actual or contemplated litigation under s. 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to four of the records (performance audits, reserve fund study, and Tarion settlement) as they were created prior to or outside the context of litigation.

However, an engineering report regarding in-suite leakage was exempt as it related to ongoing litigation in the Superior Court.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the four records at no cost, noting the respondent had a reasonable excuse for the initial denial based on legal advice.

The applicant unit owner filed an application disputing indemnification charges of $2,288.25 levied by the respondent condominium corporation.

The charges arose from legal costs incurred by the corporation in addressing threatening and discriminatory statements made by the applicant's former tenant towards a security guard.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the indemnification charges arose from violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and section 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, which are excluded from the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Ontario Regulation 179/17.

The applicant brought a complaint regarding smoke migration in a condominium.

The parties reached an agreement during Stage 2 Mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the parties to abide by the condominium's smoke-free rules, the condominium corporation to conduct an odour migration investigation, and the parties to cooperate with the investigation.

The case was closed on a without-cost basis.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, challenged the fee estimates provided by the respondent condominium corporation for the production of various non-core records, including bank statements, financial statements, and board meeting minutes.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent's fee estimates for labour, redaction, and retrieval from storage were generally reasonable, with the exception of a minor photocopying charge.

The Tribunal declined to award a penalty against the respondent, finding no unreasonable refusal to provide records.

The applicant was ordered to pay $1,000 in costs to the respondent due to unreasonable conduct and raising issues outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

The respondent condominium corporation provided the core records but refused the non-core records, arguing the request was not on the proper form, was too broad, and that the records either did not exist or were exempt due to contemplated litigation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent refused some of the non-core records without a reasonable excuse, as the request clearly identified the desired elevator maintenance records.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the specific elevator records, pay a $1,500 penalty, and reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

Prior to the scheduled video conference hearing, the applicant informed the Tribunal that she wished to withdraw her case.

The respondent had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed under Rule 43.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium owner sought permission from the respondent condominium corporation to use his parking space to service and repair his vehicle.

The corporation denied the request, relying on a rule that prohibited vehicle repairs on the common elements or parking units without express consent.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation reasonably enforced its rules and was within its rights to deny permission.

The application was dismissed without costs.

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

The applicant subsequently requested permission to withdraw the case with no award of costs or penalty.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed under Rule 43.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a unit owner, challenged the reasonableness of the condominium corporation's by-law and rule prohibiting pets.

The condominium's declaration was silent on the issue of pets, but the no-pets by-law had been in place since 1988.

The Tribunal found that the by-law and rule were not inconsistent with the declaration and were reasonable.

Applying the business judgment principle, the Tribunal deferred to the board's decision to maintain the prohibition, noting that the board had surveyed owners and acted within its authority.

The application was dismissed without costs.