CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: June 16, 2026
CASE: 2026-00319N
Citation: Gohil v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 222, 2026 ONCAT 110
Order under Rule 19.1 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s Rules of Practice
Member: Nicole Aylwin, Vice-Chair
The Applicant: Archana Gohil, Self-Represented
The Respondent: Peel Condominium Corporation No. 222
Submission Dates: April 21, 2026 to June 8, 2026
DISMISSAL ORDER
1The Applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal (the “Tribunal") on April 13, 2026. In the application, the Applicant asserted that the condominium corporation was harassing them by sending them enforcement letters related to alleged violations of various provisions of the corporation’s governing documents. Specifically, these letters accuse the Applicant of having built an illegal apartment in their basement and breaching the corporation’s rules and by-laws regarding sub-occupancy.
2The Tribunal can only hear disputes within its jurisdiction which is set out in Ontario Regulation 179/17 (“O. Reg 179/17”) of the Condominium Act, 1998. After reviewing the application, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (the “Notice”), as the disputes set out in the application did not appear to fall under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the following reasons:
The Applicant did not identify any provision in the corporation’s governing documents that governs the type of harassing conduct she alleges. While in some cases the Tribunal has determined that it can hear disputes over conduct characterized as harassing, for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to be engaged there needs to be a provision identified that governs the alleged conduct and is captured by s. 1(1)(d)(iii.2) of O. Reg. 179/17. Although the Applicant has pointed the Tribunal to Section XIII of the corporation’s declaration, that section addresses right of entry, it is not a provision that governs “other” types of nuisance, annoyance, or disruption as captured under s. 1(1)(d)(iii.2) of O. Reg. 179/17 or any other provision over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction.
The application appeared to concern allegations of unauthorized alterations to the common elements and related chargebacks. The Tribunal can address disputes over indemnification provisions and chargebacks only where the issues resulting in the chargeback are among the matters that fall within Tribunal’s jurisdiction as set out in s. 1 (1) (d) (iv) of O. Reg 179/17. Chargebacks related to unauthorized alterations to the common elements are not matters within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
3In response to the Notice, the Applicant submitted what at first glance may appear to be an application to the Tribunal, but it is not. Rather, it appears to be a document prepared by an artificial intelligence tool which mimics a Tribunal application.
4Regardless of how the document was generated, the material provided does not respond to the substantive issues set out in the Notice. Rather, it sets out an entirely new set of allegations, names new respondents, and cites new sections of the Act under which the Applicant is making new claims (one of which is a claim under s. 117 (1) – a section over which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction). It does not explain why this application should not be dismissed.
5The question before me is whether the issues identified in this application are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Based on the information before me, I find they are not. The Applicant has not identified any breach of a provision of either the Act or the Respondent’s governing documents over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The only provision cited by the Respondent as breached relates to right of entry. Additionally, the chargeback at issue appears to relate to a dispute over unauthorized alterations to the common elements. Disputes over chargebacks related to unauthorized alterations to the common elements are not disputes within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. At its core, this dispute appears to be a dispute over the allegation that the Applicant has an illegal apartment in her basement. This is not a dispute that the Tribunal can hear or decide.
6Accordingly, under Rule 19.1 (c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice I order that this case be dismissed as the Tribunal has no authority to hear or decide this dispute.
ORDER
7The Tribunal orders that:
- This case is dismissed.
Nicole Aylwin
Vice-Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: June 16, 2026