CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: July 29, 2024 CASE: 2023-00480N & 2024-00306N
Order under 1.37 (2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Nicole Aylwin, Member
The Applicant, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 993 Represented by Jessica Hoffman, Counsel
The Respondent, Daniel Zhan Self-represented
Submission Dates: July 11, 2024, to July 23, 2024
MOTION ORDER
1In May 2024, case #2023-00480N (the “current case”), between the Applicant, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 993 (“MTCC 993”) and the Respondent, Daniel Zhan, proceeded to Stage 3 – Tribunal Decision.
2At the outset of that proceeding, the parties were invited to submit opening statements. The Respondent, Mr. Zhan, submitted no opening statement. However, shortly after the deadline for submitting opening statements had passed, Mr. Zhan filed a new application with the Tribunal against MTCC 993 (case #2024‑00306N). The problem description attached to that application stated that the application was a “counterclaim” to the current case. Among other issues, the new application identified issues related to the enforcement of the MTCC 993’s rules relating to pets and animals and the necessity for human rights accommodations to be made in relation to those rules.
3As the new application filed by Mr. Zhan appeared to identify issues in dispute that potentially overlapped or were already being addressed in the current case, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Merge Cases (the “Notice”) for the following reasons:
The issues are interwoven. The issues identified in the problem description attached to #2024‑00306N relate to the enforcement of MTCC 993’s pet rules and issues related to accommodation to these rules under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Both are issues to be addressed in the current case. The remaining identified issues also appear to be directly related to the core of the dispute in the current case which is the question of whether Mr. Zhan is entitled to an accommodation to the pet rules.
Given the closely related nature of the issues in the two cases, there is likely to be significant overlap of evidence and/or witnesses.
The parties are the same and it is likely that the representatives will also be the same.
The current case is in its early stages. No evidence or submissions have been provided. Thus, it will not significantly delay or prejudice any party to merge the cases at this point.
Given the apparent similarity of issues in the case, it will save costs and be more efficient to hear the two issues together.
4I invited both parties to provide me with submissions on the question of whether the cases should be merged.
5Mr. Zhan provided no submissions nor posted any messages in response to the Notice.
6MTCC 993 provided submissions arguing that the cases should not be merged because the new application should be dismissed outright, since the issues as listed in the problem description appear to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. They submit that allowing the cases to be merged and proceed will require MTCC 993 to incur costs defending against allegations that are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and/or are being addressed elsewhere (specifically the Human Rights Tribunal), and that merging the applications will result in an unfair, unfocused and inefficient hearing as the parties will be “forced” to address unnecessary issues.
7The question of whether the issues identified in the application filed by Mr. Zhan should be dismissed is distinct from whether the cases should be merged. At this early stage – having seen only a problem description – it is premature to decide on whether the issues identified by Mr. Zhan fall outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
8Merging the cases will not force MTCC 993 to deal with unnecessary issues as, either way, the parties will need to further engage with the Tribunal on such issues. The Tribunal will need to hear from Mr. Zhan on MTCC 993’s request to have the new application/issues dismissed.
9Whether the issues identified by Mr. Zhan in case #2024-00306N are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide is a matter that can be dealt with once/if the cases are merged, and merging the cases is likely to allow for a more streamlined process reducing the burden on both parties to participate in concurrent proceedings.
10Thus, for the reasons set out in the Notice and the reasons above, I find the cases should be merged. The issues in both cases are intertwined. Mr. Zhan’s application is essentially a response to the issues in this case. Additionally, the parties and counsel are the same, it would be more efficient to hear the cases together, and merging the cases will not result in significant delay or prejudice to the parties.
11Section 1.37 (2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, allows the Tribunal to direct that two or more applications be heard together if the Tribunal believes it would be fair to determine the issues together.
12Rule 4.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice states that the CAT may give directions or make Orders to provide for a fair, focused and efficient process in each case.
13Rule 18.2 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice states that the CAT may direct that two or more cases be heard together if the CAT believes it would be fair to do so.
14Having concluded it is fair, focused, and efficient to determine the issues in the cases together, I order that the cases be merged and CAT case #2024‑00306N be closed.
ORDER
15The Tribunal orders that CAT case #2024-00306N is closed, and the issue associated with that application be added to CAT case #2023‑00480N.
Nicole Aylwin
Member, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: July 29, 2024