CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: July 10, 2025
CASE: 2025-00396N
Citation: Ramadhin v. Niagara South Standard Condominium Corporation No. 86, 2025 ONCAT 118
Order under section 1.41 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Ian Darling, Chair
The Applicant: Randy Ramadhin, Self-represented
The Respondent: Niagara South Standard Condominium Corporation No. 86
The Intervenors: Krystal Moore, Trent Essex
Submission Dates: July 2, 2025 to July 9, 2025
DISMISSAL ORDER
1An application was submitted to the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) on June 4, 2025. This order explains why the case is dismissed under Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice.
2This application identifies Niagara South Standard Condominium Corporation No. 86 (“NSSCC 86”) as the Respondent and Krystal Moore and Trent Essex as Intervenors. The Applicant, Randy Ramadhin, is an owner of a unit in NSSCC 86, and the Intervenors are the tenants.
3The Applicant is disputing the enforcement of a rule. The Respondent sent an enforcement letter that sought to stop the tenants leaving their shoes outside their unit, hence non‑complying with such rule. The Applicant alleges the enforcement is unreasonable as this only occurs occasionally, and they believe the Respondent has not made their best efforts towards an alternative dispute resolution (due to a threat of legal action in past letters regarding the non‑compliance).
4The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is set out on Ontario Regulation 179/17 (“O. Reg. 179/17”), a regulation under the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”).
5The Problem Description does not identify a provision from the condominium corporation’s governing documents that restrict, prohibit, or otherwise govern a matter that falls within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal only has jurisdiction over disputes related to provisions regarding pets, animals, vehicles, parking, storage, and nuisances that are governed by a provision in the Respondent’s governing documents.
6The Tribunal identified problems in the initial application and invited the Applicant to make changes to address the concerns. The Applicant’s response clarified that the provision they identified was not within the storage jurisdiction of the Tribunal. However, they did explain how they felt that this dispute falls within the jurisdiction.
7The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application. The Applicant did not respond to the Notice. I find that the issues in this application are not within the jurisdiction of the CAT, and order that this case be dismissed.
ORDER
8The Tribunal orders the application dismissed.
Ian Darling
Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: July 10, 2025