Jackson v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 69, 2026 ONCAT 76

CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL

DATE: April 23, 2026 CASE: 2025-00405N Citation: Jackson v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 69, 2026 ONCAT 76

Order under Rule 19 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s Rule of Practice

Member: Nicole Aylwin, Vice-Chair

The Applicant: Elizabeth Jackson, Self-Represented The Respondent: Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 69, Represented by Tony Bui, Counsel

DISMISSAL ORDER

1After receiving a compliance letter from the Respondent, Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 69 (“SCC 69” or the “corporation”) that alleged she had breached the corporation’s Harassment Rule, the Applicant, Elizabeth Jackson, filed an application with the Tribunal. In her application, she identified the dispute as being about a provision that governs nuisance, annoyance, or disruption. Specifically, she identified a dispute over compliance with the corporation’s Harassment Rule. She indicated the issues were the “reasonableness and validity of harassment allegations made against the applicant” and “whether the [harassment] rule was properly implemented and enforced according to the [Condominium] Act.”

2However, when clarifying the issues in dispute at the outset of Stage 3 – Tribunal Decision, the Applicant asserted that the issue before the Tribunal was not one of whether her conduct resulted in a nuisance, annoyance, and disruption in breach of the Harassment Rule, but rather whether the corporation had the authority to issue the letter and had followed proper procedure in doing so. She stated that she would like the Tribunal to decide whether the board was authorized to send the letter without any assessment of whether her conduct was in breach of the Harassment Rule and constituted a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption at law.

3I explained to the parties that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear all disputes related to “harassment rules”. In some cases, the Tribunal has found that it may have the authority to address disputes over conduct characterized as harassing, if the rule at issue fall under s. 1 (1) (d) (iii.2) of Ontario Regulation 179/17 (“O. Reg. 179/17”) which allows the Tribunal to hear disputes about “provisions that prohibit, restrict or otherwise govern any other nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation.” To fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction there needs to be some dispute over a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption.

4I asked the Applicant to explain how this dispute fell within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. I also allowed the Respondent to comment.

5Based on the information provided to me in response, it appeared this was not a dispute over a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption, but rather about whether the board was entitled to send the letter and if it had done so in accordance with the corporation’s rules. Thus, I issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (the “Notice”) and proposed to dismiss this application under Rule 19.1 (c) of the CAT’s Rules of Practice which permits early dismissal where the case is about issues that the Tribunal has no legal power to hear or decide. I invited submissions and reply submissions from both parties.

6Having reviewed the submissions provided to me, I find, for the reasons set out below, that the subject matter of this case is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This dispute is over whether the issuing of a compliance letter for alleged breaches of the Harassment Rule and its contents is consistent with the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”), the corporation’s governing documents and procedural requirements. It is a dispute over governance decisions and enforcement. It is not, in essence, a dispute with respect the Respondent’s Harassment Rule or alleged conduct that breaches the rule and results in a substantial interference that amounts to a nuisance, annoyance or disruption at law. Such a dispute is not captured, by s. 1 (1) (d) (iii.2) of O. Reg. 179/17.

Issue No. 1: Does the Tribunal have the legal authority to hear and decide this dispute?

7On March 13, 2025, the Respondent sent the Applicant a letter alleging that the Applicant had engaged in behavior that was harassing. The letter alleges that the Applicant has a “history” of harassing the board and the corporation's managers and engaging in conduct that is “unwelcome, and inappropriate” and is “combative, hostile and demanding.” The letter informs the Applicant that this behavior breaches its Harassment Rule and violates s.117 of the Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The letter lists several behaviors that it asserts need to stop including “harassing” the board, property mangers and contractors and sending “unsolicited communication” to the board and property managers, “except for legitimate emergences that require immediate attention.”

8In both the information provided to me during the hearing and in her submissions, the Applicant repeatedly indicated that question to be decided was one of “procedural compliance” and whether the enforcement letter “complies with the governing documents.” At the outset of he hearing the Applicant was explicit, stating that she was not asking the Tribunal to determine, and I quote:

1. Whether she harassed anyone,
2. Whether her communications were appropriate,
3. Whether a nuisance, annoyance or disruption occurred at law; or
4. When any alleged conduct took place.

9In replying to the Notice, the Applicant indicated that while she accepted that the Tribunal may need to consider whether the rule was breached as “relevant context,” whether the alleged harassment occurred was not at issue but that the “Applicant’s challenge is directed at the Respondent’s enforcement of the Rule, including whether the manner in which the non-compliance letter was issued and the measures imposed were consistent with the Act, the corporation’s governing documents and applicable procedural requirements, including principles of natural justice.”

10The Respondent takes the position that this dispute does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, that the Applicant is attempting to use the Tribunal to challenge the Respondent’s decision making by attempting frame the issue as one of nuisance, annoyance, or disruption. It argues that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is determined by the “pith and substance” of the dispute, not the Applicant’s framing of it. It asserts that the Applicant has made clear that the Applicant’s complaints are procedural complaints – and that she would like those complaints to be severed from any analysis of the underlying alleged conduct that may form a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption. It further argues the Applicant seeks to challenge the contents of the letter, and question the board’s discretion to send the letter, not have the Tribunal adjudicate a dispute in relation to a breach of a provision that governs nuisance, annoyance and disruption.

11Sending a letter for the purpose of seeking to enforce compliance in accordance with its obligations under s. 17 (3) of the Act, does not, in and of itself, fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Analysis or assessment of enforcement actions may only be addressed where the issue arises within the context of a case that is about a matter within its jurisdiction, such as a dispute over a nuisance, annoyance or disruption prohibited under s. 117 (2) of the Act or about a provision of a condominiums governing document related to such matters. In this case, the issues raised by the Applicant are related to governance – that is, whether the corporation’s decision to send the letter was fair and whether the correct procedure was followed. The Applicant is seeking to address questions related to the boards discretion to enforce its rules under s. 17 (3) of the Act, not one regarding a nuisance, annoyance or disruption at law in breach of the rule. Accordingly, I find the Tribunal has no legal authority to hear or decide this dispute and I order it dismissed under Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice.

Issue No. 2: Should an award of costs be made?

12The Respondent has requested that if this application is dismissed that the Applicant be required to pay costs to the Respondent in the amount of $7000. As justification for this request, the Respondent refers to a motion it made a day after the Tribunal accept the application (see: Jackson v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 69, 2025 ONCAT 133). In that motion, the Respondent asked the Tribunal to dismiss this dispute because there was no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and because the Applicant was vexatious. The Tribunal dismissed the motion. It determined, at that time, that there were no grounds to find the Applicant vexatious. It further found it would be premature to dismiss the application at such an early stage since it was not plainly obvious that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, nor was it obvious that there was no reasonable prospect of success; it determined that to make such a finding it would require the Tribunal to hear evidence and arguments.

13The Respondent argues that despite being alerted to a potential jurisdictional issue early in the Tribunal process the Applicant chose to proceed all the way to a Stage 3 – Tribunal Decision forcing it to incur costs.

14Section 1.44 (1) 4 of the Act states that the Tribunal may make “an order directing a party to the proceeding to pay the costs of another party to the proceeding.”

15Section 1.44 (2) of the Act states that an order for costs “shall be determined in accordance with the rules of the Tribunal.”

16The cost-related rules of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice are:

48.1 If a Case is not resolved by Settlement Agreement or Consent Order and a CAT Member makes a final Decision, the unsuccessful Party will be required to pay the successful Party’s CAT fees unless the CAT member decides otherwise.

48.2 The CAT generally will not order one Party to reimburse another Party for legal fees or disbursements (“costs”) incurred in the course of the proceeding. However, where appropriate, the CAT may order a Party to pay to another Party all or part of their costs, including costs that were directly related to a Party’s behaviour that was unreasonable, undertaken for an improper purpose, or that caused a delay or additional expense.

17Costs awards are discretionary. In this case there was no behavior by the Applicant during the proceeding that was improper or caused additional delay or additional expense. While I have determined that the issues in dispute are not ones that fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, I am conscious of the fact that Applicant is self-represented and that she may have held a reasonable belief that this issue was one that the Tribunal could address. The fact that she was wrong is not, in this case, a reason to award costs. However, I will issue a caution to the Applicant. Now that she is aware of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the fact that governance matters – such as those raised in this application – are not within the current jurisdiction of the Tribunal, I urge her to be mindful of that and not attempt to use the Tribunal as a vehicle to attempt to pursue such matters. Attempting to use the Tribunal matters of governance over which the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, could be considered behavior undertaken for an improper purpose, which is one of the factors the Tribunal may consider in awarding costs.

ORDER

18The Tribunal orders that:

1. This case is dismissed with no costs to either party.

Nicole Aylwin

Vice-Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal