CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
CASE: 2026-00069N
Order under Rule 4 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s Rules of Practice
Member: Kathryn Kertesz, Member
The Applicant, Iryna Levina Self-Represented
The Respondent, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 417 Represented by: Maria Dimakas, Counsel
MOTION ORDER
1The Respondent, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 417 (“PCC No. 417”), asks The Tribunal (“CAT”) to dismiss the application of Iryna Levina, under Rule 19.1(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice. Rule 19.1(d) permits the CAT to dismiss an application where the Applicant is using the CAT for an improper purpose. The Respondent submits that the Applicant has filed an identical claim in Small Claims Court and that this duplicate proceeding is an abuse of process.
2For the reasons below, I deny the Respondent’s motion.
A. BACKGROUND
3The Applicant, Iryna Levina filed an application with the CAT in January of 2026. On February 23, 2026, the case proceeded to Stage 2 Mediation. At the outset of the mediation the Respondent made a motion to dismiss this Application. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent unreasonably enforced its parking rules, including visitor parking permissions in the PCC No. 417’s governing documents and a related chargeback proceeding from same.
4The Applicant submitted an application in Small Claims Court in January 2026 including the same issues as in the CAT Application. On April 24, 2026, a Small Claims Court settlement conference was held but did not resolve the dispute. No procedural requests raised by either party in the Small Claims matter have yet been decided. The parties report that Small Claims Court has placed that case on hold pending the outcome of this motion.
B. ANALYSIS
5The Respondent argues the application should be dismissed because the Applicant raised the same claims and sought the same relief in a Small Claims Court action started before this CAT case. It relies on Cashin Mortgages Inc. (Verico Cashin Mortgages) v. 2511311 Ontario Ltd. (Mortgages Alliance – Main Street Mortgages), 2024 ONCA 103 (“Cashin”), and submits that allowing this case to proceed would permit duplicate proceedings and require the Respondent to defend both matters at the same time.
6The Applicant did not provide any information regarding the duplicity of the proceedings in CAT and Small Claims Court.
7In deciding this motion, I reviewed the cases and submissions provided and refer below only to those necessary to address the issues. I considered the following factors:
- The timing of the proceedings, including the stages each proceeding is at and the likely completion of the proceeding if allowed to proceed.
- The subject matter – do the issues in the proceedings overlap?
- Is the CAT proceeding vexatious or abusive? Would a dismissal prejudice one of the parties?
The timing of the proceedings.
8Although the Small Claims Court action was started first, that does not determine whether this CAT application should be dismissed.
9The Applicant submits that the Small Claims Court case has been postponed for about three months pending this decision. Based on the parties’ submissions, it appears that no further steps have been taken in that proceeding while this motion is outstanding.
10Mediation is expected to last 30 days and then if not resolved will proceed to a hearing. The CAT process could be completed before other matter is recommenced. Given that the other matter is paused there is no risk of the Respondent having to defend two claims simultaneously.
Do the issues in the proceedings overlap?
11It would appear from the parties’ submissions that the issues are identical in both proceedings.
12Ontario Regulation 179/17 (“O. Reg 179/17”) sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Section 1(1)(d)(iii) of O. Reg 179/17 gives the CAT jurisdiction over disputes about provisions that prohibit, restrict, or otherwise govern parking or storage in a unit or on the common elements. Section 1.42 of the Act provides the CAT with jurisdiction over such disputes. This dispute clearly falls within the CATs jurisdiction, and the Tribunal is the appropriate place for these issues to be determined.
Is the Tribunal proceeding vexatious or abusive? Would the dismissal prejudice one of the parties?
13The Respondent submits that the Applicant deliberately commenced parallel proceedings raising identical issues in two forums. The Applicant in her submissions has not explained why she did so. On the record before me, and given that the Applicant is self-represented, I am not prepared to infer an improper purpose; it is also possible she did not appreciate that she was seeking duplicate relief. Dismissing this motion and allowing the CAT matter to proceed permits the issues to be addressed in the appropriate forum.
14I am not persuaded that permitting this CAT application to proceed will cause the Respondent substantial prejudice or injustice. Based on the parties’ submissions, the Small Claims Court proceeding is currently paused pending the outcome of this motion. As I am denying the motion for the reasons set out in this order, the parties may proceed to address the substantive issues before the CAT. Given that the other matter is paused, again, there is no risk of the Respondent being required to defend two proceedings simultaneously.
15Also, dismissing the CAT application could stand to prejudice the Applicant, given the CAT’s jurisdiction over the issues being raised.
Costs on this motion
16The Respondent submitted that if the application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 19.1(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, then costs on this motion in the amount of $1,864.50 should be granted. Since the Respondent’s motion is denied for the reasons noted in this order, the Respondent is, therefore, not entitled to its costs on the motion.
17When balancing all the factors, I deny the Respondent’s motion to dismiss this case.
C. ORDER
18The motion to dismiss is denied.
Kathryn Kertesz
Member, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: May 11, 2026