Brian Cook

The applicant, a long-time condominium resident, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that she was subjected to unreasonable noise from neighbouring units and that the respondent condominium corporation failed to adequately investigate or stop it.

The Tribunal found that some of the noises were related to normal living or authorized repairs and were not unreasonable.

While the source of other mysterious carpentry noises could not be determined, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent's investigations were reasonable, even if not expeditious.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium owner, filed a request for core records which the respondent condominium corporation ignored until after the applicant commenced a Tribunal proceeding.

The corporation eventually provided the existing records but revealed that no board meetings had been held for a year, with decisions instead made by email.

The Tribunal found that emails are not adequate records of board decisions and directed the corporation to provide minutes once the email decisions were retroactively approved at a proper meeting.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to pay a $2,000 penalty for its initial unexcused refusal to provide the records, plus $150 in costs.

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 brought an application against the unit owners and their tenant regarding complaints of unreasonable noise.

The tenant did not participate in the hearing.

The owners did not dispute the allegations and had already commenced proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board to evict the tenant.

The Tribunal found that the tenant caused unreasonable noise in violation of section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to cease making unreasonable noise and directed the owners to continue their efforts to ensure compliance and keep the condominium corporation informed of the eviction proceedings.

No costs were ordered on consent.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking access to condominium records.

During the mediation stage, the respondent corporation provided records and stated no further records existed, which the applicant disputed.

The applicant subsequently advised she did not wish to pursue the case to the next stage, resulting in the tribunal closing the case.

The Applicants sought to withdraw their application regarding a noise complaint caused by piano playing in a neighbouring unit.

Neither the Respondent nor the Intervenor objected to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal without prejudice to the Applicants' right to bring a new application about the same issues in the future.

The applicant alleged she was subject to unreasonable noise.

The respondent condominium corporation filed redacted security reports that were difficult to understand.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to refile the reports with only sensitive personal information redacted, subject to a confidentiality order restricting their use to the hearing.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against the unit owners and their tenant regarding unreasonable noise.

The tenant did not participate in the hearing.

The participating parties agreed that the tenant caused unreasonable noise and that the owners had commenced eviction proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to cease creating unreasonable noise and ordered the unit owners to pay $2,000 in costs to the condominium corporation.

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

The applicant failed to move the case to the tribunal decision stage within the required 15-day period.

As a result, the tribunal ordered the case closed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicants sought to withdraw their application regarding a condominium pet rule due to a family health emergency.

The respondent condominium corporation did not oppose the withdrawal but sought a binding dismissal to prevent future applications on the same issues, arguing it would be an abuse of process, and also requested costs.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal without prejudice, finding the request reasonable and not an abuse of process, and declined to award costs as the applicants' conduct was not unreasonable.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against a unit owner and her three tenants regarding repeated complaints of loud noise, including music and shouting, during late night and early morning hours.

The tenants and owner failed to abate the noise despite warnings from security and management.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the tenants breached section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation's rules by creating unreasonable noise.

The Tribunal ordered the tenants to cease making unreasonable noise and ordered the unit owner to ensure her tenants comply with the rules.

The owner was also ordered to pay $2,450 in costs to the condominium corporation.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against the respondent owner for breaching rules regarding noise and smoking.

The respondent did not participate in the written hearing.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that the respondent caused unreasonable noise and smoked in his unit and on the common elements, creating a nuisance.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the rules and pay $3,400 in costs, including legal fees and compliance costs.

The applicant condominium corporation alleged that the respondent was smoking in his unit, causing odours and breaching the corporation's rules.

The respondent denied smoking in his unit since January 2023.

The parties reached a settlement in Stage 3 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to comply with the no-smoking rule and outlining a specific investigation protocol for any future complaints or sensor spikes.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought an application alleging that the respondents, the tenants in the unit above, created unreasonable noise through their daily living activities.

The applicant relied on her own testimony and unrecorded decibel readings, while an acoustic study showed the flooring met building code requirements.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the noise resulted from ordinary activities of daily living and the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the noise was objectively unreasonable.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to remove two unneutered cats from a unit owned by the respondent owner and occupied by the respondent resident.

The applicant alleged the cats caused an unreasonable odour from spraying urine and soiled the common elements.

The respondents did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the odour constituted a nuisance in contravention of section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the condominium rules.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the cats and awarded the applicant $904 in pre-application enforcement costs plus $150 in Tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order directing the respondent unit owner to stop smoking tobacco in his unit, in contravention of the corporation's rules.

The respondent denied smoking tobacco, though he admitted to adding tobacco to his medical cannabis, for which he had an accommodation.

The Tribunal found, based on evidence from other residents and security reports, that the respondent was smoking cigarettes in his unit, creating an unreasonable nuisance.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to immediately cease smoking cigarettes in his unit.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding unreasonable noise from a unit occupied by the respondents.

The tenants moved out before the hearing concluded, leaving costs and compensation as the only remaining issues.

The Tribunal found that the unit owner had received proper notice and that the noise, particularly late at night, was objectively unreasonable.

The Tribunal ordered the unit owner to pay $1,331.70 in pre-application compensation, $150 for filing fees, and $5,661 in legal costs on a partial indemnity basis due to his failure to engage early in the process.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order prohibiting the respondent from smoking cannabis on his exclusive use balcony, relying on a recently adopted rule.

The respondents argued the rule was not properly adopted.

The Tribunal found that the rule was properly adopted, reasonable, and consistent with the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease smoking cannabis on the balcony and ordered the respondents to pay $554 in compensation for pre-litigation enforcement costs and $200 for Tribunal filing fees.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order directing the respondent unit owner to cease creating a nuisance through second-hand smoke.

The respondent, who had registered as a smoker under the condominium's rules, frequently smoked on her balcony, causing unreasonable odours to migrate to neighbouring units.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the smoke migration constituted an unreasonable nuisance under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent not to smoke on her balcony between March 1 and November 30 of each year and awarded the applicant $2,005 in costs and fees.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought an application against a neighbouring unit owner, alleging that second-hand smoke was migrating into his unit and causing a nuisance.

The respondent was a legacy smoker exempted from the condominium's general smoking prohibition, subject to not causing a nuisance.

Relying on an odour migration assessment and security logs, the Tribunal found that the respondent's unit was the probable source of the smoke odours and that the migration constituted an unreasonable nuisance.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to seal the cracks around her door and furnace at her own expense to abate the nuisance, and to reimburse the applicant's Tribunal filing fees.