Benjamin Rutherford

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

Prior to a decision, the applicant informed the Tribunal that the parties had resolved the issues in dispute and requested to withdraw the case.

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

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application alleging the respondents failed to comply with parking, pet, and nuisance provisions in the governing documents.

Before a final decision was rendered, the applicant informed the Tribunal that the issues had been resolved and requested to withdraw the case on a without costs basis.

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

The applicant condominium owner and the respondent condominium corporation reached a settlement during Stage 3 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution process.

The parties agreed to a consent order requiring the corporation to provide the owner with specific board meeting minutes and monthly financial statements.

The corporation was also ordered to pay $250 as reimbursement for the owner's expenses.

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, a condominium owner, brought a motion to introduce four new documents as exhibits late in a hearing regarding a records request under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the evidence was either not necessary, could have been discovered earlier, or would introduce unfairness to the respondent by violating the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to ask limited follow-up questions of the respondent's witness instead.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to exclude the testimony of two witnesses called by the applicant owner in a records dispute.

The witnesses testified about their own experiences requesting records from the corporation.

The corporation argued the evidence should be excluded on grounds of relevance, repetition, the rule against similar fact evidence, and hearsay.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the evidence potentially relevant to whether adequate records were provided, and noting that tribunals have broad discretion to admit hearsay and are not bound by criminal law principles regarding similar fact evidence.