Benjamin Drory

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement by failing to post board meeting minutes to its website within seven days of approval.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the agreement with respect to one set of minutes, which were posted two months late.

However, the Tribunal held it lacked statutory authority to impose fines on the corporation or its board members for the breach.

As the minutes had since been posted, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant's $125 filing fee.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, erected a wooden barrier in her exclusive-use backyard to protect her dogs.

The respondent condominium corporation ordered its removal, characterizing it as 'debris, refuse, or garbage' under its rules, and later demanded its removal under threat of unilateral action.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the barrier was not garbage or debris and was not being 'stored.' However, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to rule on whether the applicant was entitled to alter the common elements under section 98 of the Condominium Act.

The applicant was awarded $200 for her Tribunal filing fees.

The applicant condominium corporation initiated a proceeding alleging that the respondent caused smoking odours to emanate from her unit, creating a nuisance and violating the corporation's no-smoking rule.

During mediation, the parties agreed to a consent order resolving the substantive issues, with the respondent agreeing not to allow smoking in her unit, balcony, or common elements.

The issue of costs was deferred to a separate adjudication.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted multiple requests for records including board meeting minutes, an engineering report, and a board resolution.

The respondent condominium corporation refused the engineering report citing contemplated litigation, delayed providing the meeting minutes, and withheld the resolution due to a dispute over the method of payment for a $5 fee.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to withhold the engineering report and charge the $5 fee, but could not dictate the payment method to deny the record.

The Tribunal also found the respondent effectively refused to provide the meeting minutes in a timely manner.

The respondent was ordered to provide the resolution and pay a $750 penalty plus $200 in costs.

The Applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested aggregate records regarding the number of occupants granted 'grandfathered' exemptions from the corporation's new smoke-free rules, broken down by floor.

The Respondent condominium corporation denied the request, arguing it sought personal information about specific units or owners under s. 55(4)(c) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the requested aggregate data did not relate to specific units or owners.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application because the requested information did not currently exist as a record, and the Tribunal will not order a corporation to create a new record that it is not otherwise required to maintain.

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

The applicant failed to pay the filing fee to move the case to the tribunal decision stage within the permitted time.

The tribunal dismissed the application and closed the case under Rule 32.3(d) of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding noise complaints and a request for records.

During Stage 2 mediation, the respondent provided the requested letters and occurrence reports.

After a period of inactivity, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he would pursue his remaining issues elsewhere and that the case could be closed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 17.1(e) of the CAT's Rules of Practice.