CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: February 5, 2026 CASE: 2025-00865N Citation: Chen v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 653, 2026 ONCAT 15
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Ian Darling, Chair
The Applicant, Tsaiti Chen Self-represented
The Respondent, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 653
Written Submissions: December 4, 2025 to January 16, 2026
DISMISSAL ORDER
1The Applicant filed a nuisance application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) against Peel Condominium Corporation No. 653 (PCC 653) (“the Respondent”). The Applicant is a unit owner in PCC 653. This application is dismissed under Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice for the reasons below.
2The Applicant alleges that the condominium corporation improperly charged back for water-damage repair costs and related legal fees to the Applicant’s unit without proper investigation, communication, or compliance with the Condominium Act, 1998.
3The CAT returned the application, explaining that the Tribunal can consider issues of indemnification or compensation provided a relevant provision exists within the corporation’s governing documents and the issues raised falls within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Ontario Regulation 179/17 (“O. Reg 179/17”). The Applicant was advised to update and resubmit the application after identifying an issue that falls within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and citing the relevant legislative provision supporting the issue raised.
4The Applicant resubmitted the application without identifying a relevant provision that would permit the Tribunal to consider the matter under clause 1(1)(d)(iv) of O. Reg. 179/17, which provides as follows:
- (1) The prescribed disputes for the purposes of subsections 1.36 (1) and (2) of the Act are,
(d) subject to subsection (3), a dispute with respect to any of the following provisions of the declaration, by-laws or rules of a corporation:
iv) Provisions that govern the indemnification or compensation of the corporation, an owner or a mortgagee regarding a dispute described in this clause.
5The issues raised appear to relate to a chargeback for repairs and maintenance issues following water damages to the Applicant’s unit and do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
6The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the case. The Applicant responded to the Notice. The Applicant asserted that the issue “falls within the Tribunal’s expanded jurisdiction (as of 2022) concerning indemnification provisions, nuisances, and chargebacks related to an owner’s alleged acts or omissions.” This misstates the jurisdiction. The Tribunal does not have authority over all chargebacks – only those that relate to the specific areas of the jurisdiction.
7The Applicant’s submission confirmed that the chargeback relates to damage relating to a leak. The Tribunal has no legal authority to determine these types of chargebacks.
ORDER
8The Tribunal orders the case dismissed.
Ian Darling
Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: February 5, 2026