CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
Order under Rule 4 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s Rules of Practice.
Member: Anna Boudria, Member
The Applicants, Marc Trinh, Meng Li, Vladimir Sakovets Self-Represented
The Respondent, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No 2745
Represented by Victor Yee, Counsel
Submission Dates: April 11, 2023 to April 19, 2023
MOTION ORDER
1The Applicants filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal (the “CAT”) seeking an order to ensure the Respondent addressed the vibration nuisance caused by the gym. The Respondent is Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2745 (“TSCC 2745”). The case proceeded to Stage 2 – Mediation on March 10, 2023.
2On April 12, 2023, the Respondent filed a motion that has two parts. The first part of the motion is to have seven individuals to be added to the application. The second part seeks the dismissal of the application due to lack of jurisdiction. This issue will either be addressed at the end of the mediation process or added to the Stage 2 Summary and Order.
3The Applicants were given a deadline of April 19, 2023, to submit their arguments regarding the first part of the motion to add seven individuals to the application. However, they have not submitted any further information.
4Section 1(1) (c.1) of the Ontario Regulations 179/17 establishes the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over disputes that includes vibration pursuant to subsection 117 (2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”). Subsection 1.36 (2) of the Act states that an owner or a mortgagee of a unit may apply to the Tribunal for the resolution of a prescribed dispute with a corporation, another owner or an occupier or a mortgagee of a unit. According to subsection 1.38 (3) of the Act, the “Tribunal may add or remove a person as a party if the Tribunal considers it appropriate.” Additionally, subsection 1.39 (1) of the Act, the Tribunal has an obligation to “adopt the most expeditious method of determining the questions arising in a proceeding before it that affords to all persons directly by the proceeding an adequate opportunity to know the issues and to be heard on matters in the proceeding.”
5A review of the problem description describes issues related to noise and vibration from the gym upstairs. The Applicants are seeking a resolution to this issue, to either adjust the gym hours or repair the gym flooring. It is not about the individuals making the noise. Instead, the dispute is whether the TSCC 2745 has taken sufficient measures to address the ongoing noise issues for the residents living below the gym.
6The Applicants have chosen TSCC 2745 as the Respondent because they believe it has the necessary resources to address the issues. However, they feel that the measures taken so far - such as posting signs in the gym - have been ineffective.
7Counsel for the Respondent argues that identifying the noise source can be challenging for individual applicants. That TSCC 2745 has taken the necessary steps to identify the individuals responsible for making the noise by reviewing key fob logs, video footage and other relevant records. Additionally, the seven individuals who received notices from the Condominium manager about dropping weights are all TSCC 2745 residents.
8The Respondent also relies on the following cases, Friedland v. York Condominium Corporation No 427, Hovagimian v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1754, and Bridglall v. York Condominium Corporations No. 202 to have the seven individuals named to this current matter.1
9I do not agree with the Respondent’s position. The cases that the Respondent has cited are distinguished from the current matter. The cases referred relate to individual units and the Tribunal concluded that it would directly impact the individual unit owners of those units. In contrast, our current matter concerns noise and vibration from a shared element that falls under the responsibility of TSCC 2745 to manage for all unit owners.
10The Applicants were instructed by property management to immediately report any noise disturbance they experienced to security so that it could be investigated to determine the cause of the noise and put a stop to it. In doing so, it created an expectation for the Applicants that any reported issues regarding the noise and vibration would be appropriately addressed by the Respondent.
11I am not of the view that naming seven individuals would be the most expeditious method of determining the noise problems that the Applicants face. Instead, it would only serve to further delay this proceeding.
12Moreover, if the Applicants had wanted to have those responsible for making the noise, they would have filed a request for records for any gym violations and address this within their application. However, this is not the case; they chose to deal directly with TSCC 2745, which is within their right.
13For these reasons, I conclude not to have the seven individuals added to the application.
ORDER
14Under the authority of subsection 1.39 (1), the Tribunal finds that the current Application would be the expeditious method for determining the issues.
15The issue to dismiss the application is reserved for the end of the mediation proceeding or to be added to the Stage 2 Summary and Order.
Anna Boudria
Member, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: May 2, 2023
Hovagimian v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1754, 2022 ONCAT 57,
Bridglall v. York Condominium Corporations No. 202, 2022 ONCAT 60.
Footnotes
- Friedland v. York Condominium Corporation No 427, 2022 ONCAT 27,