Hultquist v. Kaplan, 2025 ONCAT 212

CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL

DATE: December 15, 2025
CASE: 2025-00702N
Citation: Hultquist v. Kaplan, 2025 ONCAT 212

Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Member: Nicole Aylwin, Vice-Chair

The Applicant: Kenneth Hultquist, Self-Represented
The Respondent: Russel Kaplan, Self-Represented
The Intervenor: Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No.764, Represented by Liam Cleary, Agent

WITHDRAWAL ORDER

1The Applicant, Mr. Hultquist, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) alleging that the Respondent, Mr. Kaplan, had failed to comply or ensure compliance with various provisions in the Intervenor’s, Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 764 (“OCSCC 764” or “the corporation”), governing documents and the Condominium Act, 1998 (“the Act”). Specifically, Mr. Hultquist alleges that Mr. Kaplan’s tenants are creating unreasonable noise, smoke and odour that is creating a nuisance. He further claims the tenants are creating a nuisance, annoyance or disruption in the form of trash and litter. The case proceeded to Stage 3 - Tribunal Decision and the hearing for this application was commenced on November 27, 2025. There was no mediation prior to hearing as Mr. Kaplan only joined the proceeding after the case had proceeded to a Stage 3 - Tribunal Decision.

2The context which gives rise to this application is complex. The tenant of Mr. Kaplan’s unit is New Dawn Medical, which is a regulated health facility that provides, among other services, addiction treatment services. The allegations made by Mr. Hultquist involve the conduct of the clients of New Dawn Medical. Some of the claims made by Mr. Hultquist are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as they fall under s. 117(1) of the Act because they involve potential injury or illness to an individual and/or are likely to damage property. Mr. Hultquist was advised at the outset of the proceeding that I would not hear any arguments or evidence related to such claims. I also advised Mr. Hultquist that the hearing would address his claims as an owner of an individual unit, not the neighbourhood’s or wider community’s claims or concerns regarding the activities and clients of New Dawn Medical.

3Under Rule 43.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, the Tribunal can close a case in Stage 3 - Tribunal Decision if the Applicant has informed the Tribunal that they wish to withdraw their case, and the Adjudicator allows the withdrawal.

4On December 9, 2025, Mr. Hultquist made a request to withdraw his case because he believed “this matter is for others to resolve” and confirmed that he understood the case would be fully closed if withdrawn.

5In response to this request, I invited Mr. Kaplan and OCSCC 764 to raise any objections or concerns about the request. Neither Mr. Kaplan nor OCSCC 764 objected to the withdrawal, but Mr. Kaplan did request that I consider requiring Mr. Hultquist to pay costs under Rule 48 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice. I allowed Mr. Kaplan to make a submission providing the reasons for his request for costs.

6Mr. Kaplan has requested costs for what he terms “bad faith conduct.” He outlines a number of “incidents” that involve Mr. Hultquist and/or OCSCC 764 that he submits demonstrates such conduct. For example, he cites an incident where he alleges that the corporation would not postpone a townhall meeting to address the issues even though he requested a postponement because he could not attend. He also takes issues with how long it took the corporation to provide him and his tenant with surveillance videos of alleged incidents. He also implies that Mr. Hultquist and OSCC 764 acted in bad faith because they indicated they wanted to work cooperatively to resolve the issue but “secretly” pursued litigation and tried to use this process to engage in a “tactical ambush”.

7I appreciate that this is a difficult situation for all involved and Mr. Kaplan feels that the “pre-conduct” behaviour (i.e. actions taken before the start of this hearing) of Mr. Hultquist and OSCC 764 was not honourable or fair. I also recognize that the situation is leading to animus in the community and between the parties. However, the conduct Mr. Kaplan cites is not a basis for a costs award in this situation. Cost awards are not intended to be punitive. Costs are not imposed as a “rebuke” to the other parties, as suggested by Mr. Kaplan. Cost awards are made to reimburse a party for actual costs incurred as a result of bringing or defending an application at the Tribunal. While, at times, costs may be awarded when unreasonable conduct during the Tribunal process leads to costs being incurred by parties, this is not the situation here. In this case the hearing had just commenced. Other than having spent some time confirming the issues, neither party had made any formal submissions or provided any evidence. No party was unreasonable in their conduct during the hearing and no mediation had taken place. In short, limited time was spent on this process and there is no indication of any actual costs incurred by Mr. Kaplan by way of participation.

8Finally, there is no evidence before me that Mr. Hultquist filed this application for an improper purpose that could lead to a costs award. As noted above, while not all of Mr. Hultquist’s concerns could be addressed by the Tribunal, his application did contain allegations of issues that fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to resolve (unreasonable noise, smoke, odour, etc.).

9Therefore, having received no objection to the withdrawal itself, I will grant Mr. Hultquist request to withdraw. For the reasons as set out above, I decline Mr. Kaplan’s request that I order costs against Mr. Hultquist and OSCC 746.

10The Tribunal accepts Mr. Hultquist’s withdrawal, and I order that this case be closed without costs to any party.

ORDER

11The Tribunal orders that:

1. This case is closed in Stage 3 - Tribunal Decision under Rule 43.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice. No costs are awarded to any party.

2. The Users may share a copy of any document they received during the course of this case if required by law, such as to a government organization or a court.

Nicole Aylwin

Vice-Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal