Sun v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2736, 2026 ONCAT 25

CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL

DATE: February 13, 2026 CASE: 2025-00864R

Citation: Sun v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2736, 2026 ONCAT 25
Order under Rule 19 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s Rules of Practice.

Member: Nicole Aylwin, Vice-Chair

The Applicant, Yanbo Sun Self-Represented

The Respondent, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2736
Represented by Gareth Stackhouse, Counsel

DISMISSAL ORDER

1The Applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal (“CAT” or the “Tribunal”), and it proceeded to Stage 1 – Negotiation.

2The Applicant filed this case as a records case; he listed the issues in dispute as “the types of records the corporation is keeping.” However, in the problem description attached to the application the focus is on a chargeback to his unit that he believes to be invalid. He asserts that the Respondent improperly posted a charge to his unit ledger and classified it as a common expense. He explains that he asked the corporation to correct the inaccurate leger entry and review the matter of the chargeback, but they did not respond. He requests that the “CAT determine the validity of the charge under the governing documents, order correction of ledger and make any related orders in its jurisdiction”.

3On December 30, 2025, the Respondent made a motion to the CAT to dismiss the case for several reasons under Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice. Rule 19.1 states that the Tribunal can dismiss a case at any time in certain situations including,

(a) Where a Case is about issues that are so minor that it would be unfair to make the Respondent(s) go through the CAT process to respond to the applicant(s)’s concerns;

(b) Where a case has no reasonable prospect of success;

(c) Where a Case is about issues that the CAT has no legal power to hear or decide;

(d) Where the Applicant(s) is using the CAT for an improper purpose (e.g., filing vexatious Applications);

4According to the Respondent, the Applicant’s dispute is not a records dispute, but a dispute over a chargeback related to a maintenance and repair issue (i.e. a leak). It asks that the case be dismissed on the following grounds:

1. The CAT is an improper venue for this dispute as it is a dispute over maintenance and repair. It asserts that the Applicant’s attempt to use the Tribunal to address this chargeback is improper since the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over such a chargeback or dispute.

2. That the Applicant did not make a request for records to the corporation and thus the Applicant does not have a prescribed records dispute pursuant to s. 1. (1) (a) (b) (c) of Ontario Regulation 179/17 (“O. Reg 179/17” or the “Regulation”) which sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the CAT does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter.

3. If the Tribunal finds it has jurisdiction, the issues are so minor it would be unfair to require the Respondent to go through the process.

5In responding to the motion, the Applicant indicated that the Tribunal should hear the dispute because is about, and I quote (emphasis in the original):

1. the accuracy of the owner ledger maintained by the Corporation;

2. the classification of a disputed charge as a “common expense”; and

3. whether that charge is authorized by the governing documents, including any indemnification or chargeback provisions

6He asserts each of the above is a dispute over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. He specifically indicates that this dispute falls under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction pursuant to s. 1. (1)(d) (iii. 2) of O. Reg 179/17. He further submits that disputes over the adequacy of records do not require a records request to bring them within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

7Applicant is mistaken that s. 1. (1) (d) (iii2) of O. Reg 179/17 provides the Tribunal jurisdiction over this dispute. This provision gives the Tribunal the authority to hear disputes that “prohibit, restrict or otherwise govern any other nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets.” There is no dispute over such provisions identified here.

8However, the Applicant is correct that the fact that he did not make a request for records does not mean the Tribunal cannot hear an application about the adequacy of records. There is nothing in s. 1 (1) (a) (b) or (c) of O. Reg 179/17 – which are the sections that outline the Tribunals’ jurisdiction as it relates to records – that indicates that making a request for records to the corporation is a mandatory requirement for bringing a dispute regarding s. 55 to the Tribunal. While many disputes before this Tribunal arise from such requests, the Regulation does not necessarily require such a request to trigger its jurisdiction.

9Nonetheless, despite the Applicant’s attempt to argue that this dispute is one about records, the crux of this dispute is about the validity of a chargeback to the Applicant. The Applicant may take issue with the ledger entry that recorded the chargeback, which he believes is incorrect, and he may want this corrected, but it has little to do with adequacy of the corporation’s records. The Applicant clearly states in both his problem description and his submissions that he is seeking to challenge whether the Respondent’s governing documents authorize the disputed charge (as recorded in the ledger).

10Additionally, and notwithstanding that this application was not filed as nuisance related dispute, while the Tribunal does have some jurisdiction to decide disputes over indemnification and compensation provisions it is limited to hearing disputes over such provisions insofar as they relate to a dispute over provisions that govern parking, pets, storage, vehicles and nuisance, annoyance, or disruption. The chargeback at issue does not appear to relate to a dispute within the CAT’s jurisdiction. It appears to relate to a leak incident that caused physical damage to the property.

11For these reasons, I find the application should be dismissed. The Applicant is not seeking to address a records dispute under s. 55 of the Act over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. Rather, he is seeking to challenge the validity of a chargeback to his unit relating to a leak, a dispute over which the Tribunal has no legal power to hear or decide.

12Furthermore, even if this dispute could be characterized as a records case, I would dismiss this case on the grounds that the issue is so minor that it would be unfair to make the Respondent go through the entire Tribunal process to address the allegation that there is a single error in one record of the corporation.

13For all the reasons above, I grant the motion and dismiss the application.

ORDER

14The Tribunal orders that:

1. This case is closed in Stage 1 - Negotiation under Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice.

Nicole Aylwin

Vice-Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal