Teeter v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 8, 2024 ONCAT 112

Condominium Authority Tribunal

Date: July 29, 2024
Case: 2024-00202N
Citation: Teeter v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 8, 2024 ONCAT 112

Order under Rule 4 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s Rules of Practice.

Member: Mary Ann Spencer, Member

The Applicant: James Teeter
Represented by Lenka Cernova-Cerrato, Agent

The Respondent: Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 8
Represented by Shelley Miller, Agent

Submission Dates: July 9, 2024 to July 19, 2024

MOTION ORDER

1The Applicant, James Teeter, is the owner of a unit of Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 8 (“SCC 8” or the “corporation”). Mr. Teeter filed an application with the Tribunal alleging that SCC 8 has failed to assign him a mooring space for his boat in accordance with its mooring policy. The issue to be decided is whether the corporation has failed to enforce the provisions of its governing documents relating to boat mooring, mooring fees and the assignment of mooring spaces. The issue was not resolved in Stage 2 – Mediation and the Stage 3 – Tribunal Decision proceeding began on July 5, 2024.

2SCC 8 does not own the waterfront property on which its mooring spaces are located. As a preliminary matter in the Stage 3 proceeding, the Applicant has requested that the owner of that property, identified by the parties as “Talisker”, be added as an Intervenor in this matter. I requested and received submissions from both parties. While the parties’ submissions raise a number of questions, including questions relating to jurisdiction, this motion decision only addresses whether “Talisker” should be added as an Intervenor.

3The Tribunal may add a party to a matter if that party could be directly affected by its decision on the matters at issue. For example, in a case where an Applicant alleges that a corporation is failing to address unreasonable noise, the owner of a unit alleged to be the source of the noise could be added as an Intervenor because they could face financial consequences if they were found to be the source of that unreasonable noise. The Tribunal could order that unit owner to take steps to reduce the noise.

4On September 15, 1975, SCC 8 signed an agreement with the owner of “certain lands and waterways abutting or near the property” which set out the terms of SCC 8’s use of 256 feet of retaining wall for non-commercial mooring space purposes. The Applicant alleges that SCC 8 has assigned mooring spaces to owners in an additional 120 feet. His expressed concern is that should he accept a mooring space that is outside of the 256 feet, he could be charged with trespass and/or held responsible for the maintenance of the retaining wall in that space. He submits that the retaining wall owner should be added as an Intervenor in this matter because it could be directly affected if the Tribunal decision “does not take into consideration the precise boundaries of the 256 feet and SCC 8 continues the unconsented use of the additional approximately 120 feet.”

5SCC 8’s position is that the waterways/retaining wall owner does not need to be added as a party to this matter. It submitted that it has allocated mooring spaces without issue for some 50 years. It noted that owners are not assigned permanent mooring spaces. It also submitted photographs and measurements that indicate it is using approximately 262 feet of retaining wall and that, on May 15, 2024, it advised owners that the corporation would hold a meeting on May 19, 2024 because it was at mooring capacity and needed to adjust the space between boats.

6The issue to be addressed in this case is whether SCC 8 is complying with the provisions of its governing documents which relate to the allocation of mooring space. If on hearing evidence, the Tribunal were to find that the corporation has failed to enforce those provisions, any compliance order would be directed solely to the corporation. Therefore, there is no basis on which to add the owner of the retaining wall as a party in this matter and the Applicant’s motion is denied.

ORDER

7The Applicant’s motion is denied.

Mary Ann Spencer

Member, Condominium Authority Tribunal