CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
CASE: 2020-00371N
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Michael H. Clifton, Vice-Chair
The Applicant, Aqib Rahman Self-Represented
The Respondent, Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779 Represented by Victor Yee, Counsel
MOTION DECISION
1The Applicant in this case seeks an order relating to his eligibility to use an accessible parking space within the Respondent’s common elements, which the Respondent has denied based upon provisions in its declaration or rules. This motion is brought by the Respondent to dismiss the Applicant’s case on certain grounds. After considering the submissions made by both parties, I have determined that the grounds cited by the Respondent are not sufficient to favour dismissal and that the hearing of this case will proceed. The following are my reasons.
Motion for Dismissal
2The Respondent’s motion is based on clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 17.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, which provide as follows:
17.1 The CAT can dismiss a Case at any time in certain situations, including:
(b) Where a Case is about issues that the CAT has no legal power to hear or decide;
(c) Where the Applicant(s) is using the CAT for an improper purpose (e.g., filing vexatious Applications);
3The Respondent submits under Rule 17.1(b) that the Tribunal has no legal power to hear or decide the case since it relates to section 117 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”). Although clause (i) of section 1(1)(d) of Ontario Regulation 179/17 grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to address (among other things) “a dispute with respect to… [p]rovisions [of the declaration, by-laws or rules of a corporation] that prohibit, restrict or otherwise govern the parking,” which is the central issue in this case, section 1(3) of the same regulation restricts that jurisdiction where the dispute “is also with respect to section 117 of the Act.”
4Under Rule 17.1(c), the Respondent submits that this case is vexatious or an abuse of process by the Applicant, based on the Applicant’s alleged prior conduct and as the Applicant has additionally commenced, or threatened to commence, a variety of other legal proceedings arising out of the same circumstances.
Re: Rule 17.1(b) – Does the Tribunal have legal power to hear and decide this case despite the restriction set out in [section 1(3)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-179-17/latest/o-reg-179-17.html) of [Ontario Regulation 179/17](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-179-17/latest/o-reg-179-17.html)?
5As noted above, section 1(3) of Ontario Regulation 179/17 restricts the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under section 1(1)(d) of that Regulation, where the dispute in question “is also with respect to section 117 of the Act.” Section 117 of the Act provides,
No person shall permit a condition to exist or carry on an activity in a unit or in the common elements if the condition or the activity is likely to damage the property or cause injury to an individual.
6The Respondent submits that there are two ways in which the dispute in this case “is also with respect to section 117 of the Act.” First, the Respondent submits that the Applicant’s conduct in relation to this case constitutes harassment of the Respondent’s