Brian Cook

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

After the case proceeded to Stage 3, the applicant informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their 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 condominium corporation applied to the Tribunal alleging the respondent owner failed to comply with pet rules by allowing her large dog to be off-leash and out of control on common elements.

Following the application, incidents involving alleged injuries to residents occurred, raising jurisdictional questions under section 117 of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal found it retained jurisdiction because the central issue remained rule compliance, which could be determined independently of the injury allegations.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent breached the pet rules and ordered her to ensure the dog is tightly leashed and controlled by a capable person at all times on common elements, awarding partial pre-application costs and filing fees to the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to remove two dogs from his unit, alleging they caused unreasonable noise and exhibited aggressive behaviour.

The respondent claimed the dogs were emotional support animals but failed to provide requested medical documentation and did not participate in the tribunal proceedings.

The tribunal found the dogs constituted a nuisance under the condominium's governing documents and the Condominium Act, 1998.

The tribunal ordered the removal of the dogs and directed the respondent to pay a portion of the applicant's pre-application legal costs and tribunal filing fees.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The respondent subsequently sold her unit and moved out of the building.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application, which the Tribunal accepted, ordering the case closed.

The respondents brought a motion to reopen a Condominium Authority Tribunal case in which they were found to have caused unreasonable noise.

The respondents argued they did not understand the online dispute resolution process and missed the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it was not advisable to reopen the case because the tenant did not dispute making the noise and the unit owner had deliberately chosen not to participate in the original proceedings.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to remove one of two dogs from a unit, arguing the governing documents permit only one dog and that the second dog belonged to a non-resident owner.

The respondents argued the owner was a resident and required the second dog as an emotional support animal.

The Tribunal found the owner was at least an occasional resident or frequent guest and was therefore entitled to have his accommodation request considered under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed, and the owner was directed to submit a formal accommodation request.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order directing the respondent resident to stop making unreasonable noise and directing the respondent owner to ensure compliance.

The resident participated minimally and the owner did not participate.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal accepted the uncontested evidence of multiple noise complaints, including loud screaming and heavy objects being thrown late at night.

The Tribunal ordered the resident to cease making unreasonable noise and ordered the owner to pay pre-litigation compliance costs and tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding unreasonable noise and loud parties caused by a tenant.

Despite multiple warnings and a notice to terminate the lease from the landlord, the noise continued.

The tenant and landlord did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the tenant breached section 117(2)(a) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and ordered the tenant to cease making unreasonable noise.

The Tribunal also ordered the landlord to ensure the tenant's compliance, keep the corporation updated on Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings, and pay $150 in costs.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding access to records.

The Tribunal found that while it has jurisdiction to enforce settlement terms that go beyond what it could order after a hearing, it cannot enforce terms that require a party to do something expressly prohibited by the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the enforceable terms of the settlement, including updating the record of owners and mortgagees and sending yearly reminders, but found that the respondent could not disclose lease records relating to specific units as it is prohibited by section 55(6) of the Act.

The applicant condominium owner complained of unreasonable noise from the respondent neighbour's unit and backyard, specifically from social gatherings involving amplified music and karaoke.

The Tribunal found that while ordinary noise from social gatherings is not unreasonable, the use of amplified music and karaoke at high volumes constituted unreasonable noise under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent was ordered to ensure amplified sound levels are not unreasonably loud, and to pay the applicant's $150 Tribunal filing fee.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application against the condominium corporation regarding unreasonable noise and vibration transmitting into his unit from the gym located directly below.

The applicant provided acoustical engineering evidence demonstrating that dropped barbells and door latches caused significant structure-borne noise.

The condominium corporation argued that the applicant should have expected some noise when purchasing a unit above a gym and that it had taken sufficient steps by posting warning signs.

The Tribunal found that while some noise was to be expected, the impact noise from the gym was objectively unreasonable and constituted a nuisance under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to investigate the causes of the noise and develop a plan to mitigate it, and awarded the applicant his tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application regarding complaints about dogs residing in the respondent's unit.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to pay $500 towards legal costs, ensure compliance with governing documents regarding pets and guests, and report any appearances by a specific unwanted guest.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application regarding complaints of significant disruption and unreasonable noise caused by a resident.

The parties agreed to settle the matter via a consent order.

The tribunal ordered the resident to cease making unreasonable noise or causing disturbances on the property, and established a communication protocol for future incidents.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order declaring that the respondent unit owner violated its smoke-free environment rule and sought payment of costs associated with enforcement.

The respondent and her sons had previously been granted legacy status exempting them from the rule.

The Tribunal found that the condominium corporation failed to properly investigate a nuisance complaint, unreasonably ignored the respondent's legacy status, and improperly registered a lien against the unit.

The application was dismissed, the legacy status was confirmed, and the condominium corporation was ordered to reverse all chargebacks and pay $2,000 in legal costs to the respondent.

The applicant, a condominium owner, sought an order requiring his neighbour to replace or modify an outdoor light fixture that shone into his unit.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the light's wattage had been reduced, the fixture's clear glass sides violated the condominium corporation's declaration requiring exterior lighting to be subtle and diffused.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to modify or replace the fixture to comply with the declaration.

The applicant's request for costs was denied due to his harassing behaviour toward the respondent during the proceedings.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the tenant respondents contravened a prior settlement agreement by allowing their dog to be unleashed on the common elements.

The Tribunal reviewed video evidence and found that the dog had been outside without a leash on several occasions, establishing a contravention.

However, the Tribunal concluded the incidents were accidental and did not warrant the removal of the dog or significant costs.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant respondents to abide by the settlement, ensure their leash is strong enough, exercise greater caution when opening their door, and pay $125 in Tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium owner sought relief regarding unreasonable noise and disruption caused by the tenant of the unit below hers.

The respondent landlord delayed initiating eviction proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board despite repeated complaints.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the tenant breached section 117(2)(a) of the Condominium Act by creating unreasonable noise, and that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance under section 119(2).

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to cease the noise and ordered the landlord to pay the applicant $1,350 for lost rental income and $150 for filing fees.

The applicant condominium corporation and the respondent unit owner reached a settlement during Stage 2 mediation regarding complaints of unreasonable odours emanating from the respondent's unit.

The parties agreed to a consent order requiring the respondent to comply with the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation's rules.

The applicant agreed to provide 48 hours' notice for any future odour complaints before taking action and waived its right to seek costs related to the application or remediation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued the consent order to resolve the dispute.

The applicant's resident parked his vehicle in the condominium's underground parking without displaying a parking pass and was ticketed and towed.

The applicant sought reimbursement for the ticket, towing costs, and tribunal fees.

The Tribunal found that while issuing a ticket was a reasonable enforcement of the parking rules, towing the vehicle without warning was unreasonable given the resident had recently moved in.

The condominium corporation was ordered to reimburse the towing costs and tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application regarding noise complaints about barking dogs in the respondents' unit.

The parties agreed to settle the matter by way of a consent order.

The tribunal issued the consent order requiring the tenant to vacate the unit or remove the dogs by a specified date, with the applicant absorbing all associated costs.