CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
Order under Rule 4 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s Rules of Practice.
Member: Ian Darling, Chair.
The Applicant, York Condominium Corporation No. 176 Represented by Christopher Zhao, Counsel
The Respondent, Stacey Shearer Self Represented
Submission Dates: July 17, 2025 to August 29, 2025
MOTION ORDER
1The Respondent, Stacey Shearer made a motion to reopen the case under rule 47 the CAT rules because she was unable to participate in the hearing. The hearing ran from September 11 – October 16, 2024. The decision was issued on October 25, 2024. The decision stated that the Respondent did not participate in the case, but the Member was satisfied that the Respondent was aware of the case.
2Tribunal Rule 47 states that:
47. Reopening a Case After a Party Failed to Participate
47.1 The CAT may reopen all or part of a Case if the Case was closed after a Party:
(a) failed to appear or participate in all or part of a Case; or,
(b) failed to respond to a request or communication from the CAT.
47.2 A Party has 15 days after the Case has closed to request that it be re-opened. The Party must deliver their request to the other Parties and to the CAT. The Party’s request must give details about:
(a) why the Party failed to appear or participate, or failed to respond; and
(b) why it is unfair for the Party if the Case is not reopened.
47.3 The CAT may respond to the request for review without hearing from the other Parties, and the CAT does not have to give any reasons for its response.
3The Respondent submits that she was injured and unable to participate. The Respondent also submitted that the dog in question has not been in the unit since September 2024. The Respondent did not provide any information to explain why she did not submit the request to reopen the case until July 2025.
4The Tribunal requested additional information from the Respondent to explain why the request was outside of the time limits as established in Rule 47. The Respondent did not reply.
5I decline to reopen the case. In the Respondent’s own submission, she acknowledges that the dog was in the unit when the case started. Therefore, I can conclude that a hearing was necessary. Secondly, the Respondent has not satisfied the Tribunal that it would be unfair not to reopen the case after such a significant delay.
ORDER
6The Motion is dismissed.
Ian Darling
Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: September 12, 2025