Bradley Chaplick

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal that proceeded to Stage 2 mediation.

After mediation reached an impasse, the applicant was given the opportunity to move the matter to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fee within 15 days.

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

The applicants, condominium unit owners, brought an application against their condominium corporation, a unit owner, and the unit's tenants, alleging nuisance conduct including noise, smoke, and two specific incidents involving physical altercations, threats, and racial slurs.

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claims regarding the two specific incidents.

The Tribunal found that the alleged conduct in those incidents involved activities likely to cause injury or illness, which falls under section 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

As the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over section 117(1) claims, the allegations related to the two specific incidents were dismissed, while the remaining nuisance claims were allowed to proceed.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that he was withdrawing his case.

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

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request.

During mediation, the respondent provided all requested records.

The applicant sought to amend records and raised governance issues, which fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and, after reviewing submissions, dismissed the application as all requested records had been provided and the remaining issues were outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant unit owner sought draft reserve fund studies and alleged that the respondent condominium corporation's financial records were inadequate.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal held that draft documents do not constitute records of the corporation under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998, and denied the request for drafts and a penalty.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent's records relating to reserve fund planning and garage repairs were inadequate because they failed to provide clear and consistent information.

The respondent was ordered to provide a detailed report on garage expenditures, but no costs were awarded.

The applicant unit owner filed an application regarding noise and vibrations transferring into his unit, which he attributed to construction deficiencies and sought repairs.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the application related to repair and maintenance issues under sections 89 and 90 of the Condominium Act, which fall outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant's late allegations of human activity causing the noise were found to be a veiled attempt to keep the application within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The motion was granted and the application dismissed.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's noise nuisance case due to inactivity during the negotiation stage.

The applicant opposed the motion, citing delays by the respondent and requesting time to secure legal counsel.

The Tribunal found that the parties had actively engaged in negotiations and there was no evidence the case was filed for an improper purpose.

The Tribunal denied the motion to dismiss but ordered the applicant to pay the fee to move the case to mediation within 15 days, failing which the case would be closed.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for a confidentiality order.

The respondent and intervenor sought legal costs following the dismissal of the applicant's condominium dispute.

The Tribunal found that while the self-represented applicant's introduction of extraneous issues was merely unreasonable, her persistent refusal to follow directions and her unexcused absence from a scheduled hearing day constituted grossly unreasonable conduct.

The Tribunal awarded partial legal costs and disbursements against the applicant.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to order the respondent to add the intervenor's costs to the applicant's common expenses.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought an order permitting her to use electric vehicle charging stations in the shared visitor parking area, or alternatively, requiring the condominium corporation to install a dedicated charging station at its expense.

She argued that the restriction on visitor parking violated the Condominium Act regulations, the AODA, and her right to accommodation for a physical disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the statutory provisions did not grant her the right to use the visitor parking or compel the installation of a charger.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish discrimination based on her disability, as her request related to her preference for an electric vehicle rather than a disability-related need, and she had already refused a reasonable accommodation offered by the corporation.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion for late disclosure of security camera footage in an ongoing dispute regarding the installation of an electric vehicle charging station as a disability accommodation.

The applicant opposed the motion but did not claim prejudice, arguing the footage was not inconsistent with her disability.

The Tribunal granted the motion, noting its power to control its own process and allowing the applicant two weeks to provide rebuttal evidence.

The applicant condominium owner sought an order permitting her to use the visitor parking area to charge her electric vehicle or requiring the condominium corporations to install an electric vehicle charging station.

The respondent and intervenor condominium corporations brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the limitation period had expired.

The Tribunal found that the dispute arose on March 1, 2017, when the applicant was denied permission to use the visitor parking area.

As the application was brought more than three years after the dispute arose, it was statute-barred under section 1.36 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order under s. 134 of the Condominium Act to invalidate the election of the respondent to the board of directors, alleging a commercial proxy for 33 votes was improperly counted as only one vote.

The court found that the commercial proxy was not present at the annual general meeting or the recount.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the proxy had been present, it would have been invalid because it lacked the required initials beside the candidate's name, contrary to the clear instructions of the meeting chairperson.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision finding that its declaration required the costs of waste disposal for the food court seating area to be paid as common expenses by all unit owners, rather than solely by the food court unit owners.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the declaration.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the application judge erred by effectively excusing the food court unit owners from paying for the disposal of their own individual unit wastes, contrary to an express provision in the declaration.

The issue of individual unit waste disposal costs was remitted to the application judge.

The applicants filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by their condominium corporation.

The respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with in prior Superior Court proceedings under the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal found that the factual underpinnings of both proceedings were identical and the Court's factual findings precluded a finding of discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under s. 45.1 and alternatively as an abuse of process, as the applicants impermissibly split their case by failing to raise the Code allegations in the prior court proceedings.

Unit owners operating food court businesses in a commercial condominium brought an application under the Condominium Act seeking declarations, damages, and oppression remedies regarding the allocation of common expenses and enforcement of exclusive-use provisions.

The court interpreted the condominium declarations and held that waste disposal for common elements, including a food court seating area subject to exclusive use, remained a common expense payable by all unit owners.

The applicants had therefore been overcharged since 2012 and were awarded damages representing their share of improperly allocated waste disposal costs.

The court also ordered the corporation to enforce a designated-use provision protecting one applicant’s exclusive right to sell dim sum but rejected allegations of oppressive conduct by the condominium corporation.

Costs were left for further submissions.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related civil proceeding.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it was out of time and deficient.

The Tribunal found that the request was filed within the 60-day time limit, as the related civil proceeding concluded when the court issued its costs decision.

The Tribunal also found the request was not deficient.

The application was re-activated, and a teleconference hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process.

The appellants, condominium unit owners, appealed the dismissal of their Small Claims Court action against the respondent condominium corporation.

The action challenged a special assessment levied to pay legal fees from an unsuccessful parking dispute.

The deputy judge dismissed the action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, finding the appellants discovered their claim more than two years before commencing the action.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, confirming the cause of action accrued when the board's decision was ratified and the special assessment took immediate legal effect, not when the first installment was due.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim regarding access to condominium records and ordering him to pay $2,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias or breach of natural justice in the deputy judge's conduct.

However, the court held that the deputy judge erred in penalizing the applicant in costs for conduct outside the proceeding.

The application was allowed in part, and the costs award was reduced to $150 plus $500 in disbursements.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondents breached a prior settlement agreement regarding second-hand smoke in her condominium unit.

The applicant claimed the respondents failed to resolve the smoke issue and replace a damaged window.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the written Minutes of Settlement only required the respondents to caulk and seal the exterior windows, which they did, and did not contain any guarantee to eliminate all smoke or replace the window.

The Tribunal noted that oral conditions cannot be imputed into a written settlement.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment based on race, place of origin, ancestry, ethnic origin, and creed.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing they were not the applicant's employer and there was no evidence of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that section 5 of the Code is not limited to formal employment relationships and that the applicant's evidence, if proven, could lead to a finding of discrimination.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.