Acharjee v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1103, 2025 ONCAT 165

CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL

DATE: September 30, 2025 CASE: 2025-00370N Citation: Acharjee, Acharjee v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1103, et al., 2025 ONCAT 165

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

Member: Nicole Aylwin, Vice-Chair

The Applicant: Sumon Acharjee, Self-Represented Aparna Acharjee, Self-Represented

The Respondents: Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1103, Represented by Bradley Chaplick, Counsel Nikolay Markov, Self-Represented Hassan Pouramnkiouj; Ashraf Abedivaluojerdi; Hanna Pouramnkiouj; Amir Pouramnkiouj, Did not join the case

Submission Dates: September 12, 2025, to September 18, 2025

MOTION ORDER

A. INTRODUCTION

1The Applicants, Sumon and Aparna Acharjee, own a unit in the Respondent Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1103 (“MTCC 1103”). They brought an application to the Tribunal claiming that the tenants, Hassan Pouramnkiouj, Ashraf Abedivaluojerdi, Hanna Pouramnkiouj and Amir Pouramnkiouj, of the unit owned by the Respondent Nikolay Markov, have failed to comply with several of the corporation’s rules, resulting in a nuisance, annoyance or disruption as per the Condominium Act, 1998 (“the Act”). The Applicants allege the tenants have engaged in conduct that breaches the corporation’s rules and the Act. The conduct includes creating unreasonable noise, smoke and odour, and other types of nuisance conduct. After receiving opening statements, I requested submissions from the Applicants on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with some of the conduct cited by them. I did not request submissions from any of the Respondents.

2Specifically, I requested submissions from the Applicants on whether the Tribunal could hear the parts of the application related to two “nuisance incidents” (“Incident #1 and Incident #2”) alleged by them. It appeared based on the nature of the Applicants allegations and proposed evidence that the conduct at issue in these incidents fell within s. 117(1) of the Act which reads:

No person shall, through an act or omission, cause a condition to exist or an activity to take place in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation if the condition or the activity, as the case may be, is likely to damage the property or the assets or to cause an injury or an illness to an individual.

3The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear claims that fall under s. 117(1) of the Act and I must dismiss any claims which fall under this section.

4This motion order addresses only the issue of whether parts of the application should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

5After reviewing the submissions and information provided by the Applicants, for the reasons set out below, I find that the conduct at issue in Incident #1 and Incident #2 fall within s. 117(1) of the Act and are not within jurisdiction of the Tribunal to address. I order that the specific allegations related to these incidents be dismissed. I will not hear evidence or arguments in relation to them.

B. BACKGROUND

6Below I set out the background of the two incidents as alleged by the Applicants. I note that this background is important for providing context and assessing jurisdiction. However, in considering the question of jurisdiction I am not analyzing the merits of the case or making any factual findings on the Applicants’ allegations, which are untested and disputed by the Respondents. Rather, I am assessing if the conduct at issue, as alleged on its face, falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

7According to the Applicants, Incident #1 took place at the condominium’s front entrance. The Applicants allege that on May 2, 2025, Amir Pouramnkiouj was attempting to enter the building without a key. They submit that when Ms. Acharjee denied him entry, Mr. Pouramnkiouj became aggressive and made racial slurs towards her. According to the Applicants this incident escalated and ended with a “tussle” at the door, which resulted in injury to Ms. Acharjee who was taken to the hospital by ambulance after the incident. During the incident 911 was called and the police attended.

8According to the Applicants Incident #2 took place about two weeks later on May 17, 2025. The Applicants alleged that they encountered Mr. Pouramnkiouj in the parking garage where he shouted threats and racial slurs at them and then attempted to physically block their exit from the garage. They allege that when they exited the garage Mr. Pouramnkiouj followed them and continued shout threats and derogatory remarks at them. Again 911 was called.

C. ANALYSIS

9According to the Applicants, this conduct falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because on these two occasions Mr. Pouramnkiouj created a nuisance in the common areas, which is contrary to the corporation’s Rule 6, which reads:

Owners, their customers, visitors and employees shall not create or permit the creation of or continuation of any noise or nuisance which, in the opinion of the Board or the Manager, may or does disturb the comfort or quiet enjoyment of the units or common elements by other owners, their customers, visitors and employees and persons having business with them.

10The Tribunal has consistently determined that the Tribunal may hear claims about conduct, activities and/or conditions, not listed in s. 117(2) of the Act, if there is a rule that may encompass the alleged conduct which results in a nuisance, annoyance or disruption. While this rule is broad enough to encompass conduct which may be a nuisance, annoyance or disruption, the conduct alleged must fall short of the conduct prohibited under s. 117(1) of the Act to be heard by this Tribunal; it must be less serious than conduct which would cause property damage, injury or illness.

11According to the Applicants, during both incidents they felt threatened and were concerned for their safety – to the point that 911 was called on both occasions. Additionally, according to the Applicants, Ms. Acharjee was physically injured during Incident #1. The Applicants describe Incident #2, as ‘traumatizing’ for their daughter who was with them and note that they were physically blocked form leaving the premises – that is, denied a “safe exit”.

12I note that in replying to my request for submissions on jurisdiction, the Applicants characterized this behavior as “unneighbourly” but this adjective is not consistent with the evidence the Applicants have proposed to provide (i.e., police reports of the incidents, photographs of Ms. Acharjee’s injuries) and the numerous descriptions of the incidents they have provided which have all referred in one way or another to physical confrontations (whether between individuals or the blocking of exits), threats, injury (psychological or physical) and behavior that they considered be so frightening that 911 was called.

13The Applicants’ evidence clearly establishes that, in their view, the alleged conduct in Incident #1 and Incident #2 involves activities or conditions that may cause illness or injury to someone in or on the condominium property, which are issues that properly fall under section 117(1) of the Act.

14Under Rule 4.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, the Tribunal may give directions or make orders to provide a fair, focused and efficient process in each case. In this case, I am ordering that the allegations related to Incident #1 and Incident #2 be dismissed as they fall outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to address. The other claims made in the application regarding noise, smoke/odour and the other allegations of nuisance conduct aside from Incident #1 and Incident #2 will proceed.

D. ORDER

15Under Rule 4.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, the Tribunal orders the following:

1. The specific allegations related to Incident #1 and Incident #2 (as above) are about matters that the Tribunal has no legal power to hear or decide and are therefore dismissed under Rule 19.1(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice; and

2. The Application will continue to hear and decide the allegations concerning the remaining issues related to noise, nuisance and smoke/odour.

Nicole Aylwin Vice-Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal