Gurnav Holdings Ltd v. MiloDara Inc., 2026 ONCAT 13

CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL

DATE: February 5, 2026 CASE: 2025-00726R Citation: Gurnav Holdings Ltd v. MiloDara Inc., 2026 ONCAT 13

Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Member: Ian Darling, Chair

The Applicant, Gurnav Holdings Ltd Self-represented

The Respondent, MiloDara Inc.

Written Submissions: December 9, 2025 to January 16, 2026

DISMISSAL ORDER

1This application is dismissed under Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice for the following reasons:

1. The Applicant filed a records application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) against MiloDara Inc.. MiloDara Inc. does not appear to be a condominium corporation as required under the Condominium Act, 1998 (“the Condo Act). The Applicant purchased a unit from MiloDara Inc.

2. The Applicant claimed in the problem description that the condominium corporation sold the unit to them, which was originally a commercial property converted to a condominium unit, without filing any declaration and listed it for sale in violation of section 7 of the Condominium Act, 1998, without filing any declaration. They further allege that the condominium corporation violated sections 71 and 72 of the Condo Act. The Applicant asserts that the condominium corporation caused the Applicant to deposit $100,000 without authority and refuses to refund the money.

3. The CAT returned the application, explaining that it can only consider records related issues within its jurisdiction as set out in s. 1(1)(a)(b) of Ontario Regulation 179/17 (“O. Reg. 179/17”). The Applicant was advised to revise and resubmit the application to identify a record-related issue that falls within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

4. The Applicant resubmitted the application and stated that they were requesting disclosure statements as per section 72 of the Condo Act and the authority to sell without first obtaining the necessary permits of the condominium conversion.

5. The CAT can only consider matters that fall within its jurisdiction. Record related matters fall within section 1 (1) (a) (b) of Ontario Regulation 179/17 (“O. Reg 179/17), which states the following.

6. (1) The prescribed disputes for the purposes of subsections 1.36 (1) and (2) of the Act are,

(a) a dispute with respect to subsection 55 (1), (2), (2.1), (3), (4), (5), (6) or (8) of the Act;

(b) a dispute with respect to subsection 55 (2.2) of the Act if the dispute is with respect to subsection 13.12 (3) or (4) of Ontario Regulation 48/01 (General) made under the Act, but not any other dispute.

6. Additionally, the property identified is not a condominium that is registered as required by section 2 (1) and (3) of the Condo Act. This section provides the following.

2 (1) Subject to the regulations and subsections (2) and (2.1), a declaration and description may be registered by or on behalf of the person who owns the freehold or leasehold estate in the land described in the description.

3. Upon registration of a declaration and description,

(a) this Act governs the land and the interests appurtenant to the land, as the land and the interests are described in the description;

(b) the land described in the description is divided into units and common elements in accordance with the description; and

(c) a condominium corporation is created.

7. The Applicant did not identify a record-related issue within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and the purchased property identified is not a condominium corporation as provided under the Condo Act.

2The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the case. The Applicant did not respond to the Notice.

3The Tribunal has no legal authority to decide the issue.

ORDER

4The Tribunal orders the case dismissed.

Ian Darling Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal