Wong v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2338, 2026 ONCAT 99

CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL

DATE: June 1, 2026 CASE: 2025-00923R Citation: Wong v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2338, 2026 ONCAT 99

Order under Rule 4 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s Rules of Practice.

Member: Roger Bilodeau, Member

The Applicant: James Wong, Self-Represented The Respondent: Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2338, Represented by Nasrudin Mumin, Counsel

Submission Dates: April 15, 2026 to April 26, 2026 and May 13, 2026 to May 20, 2026

MOTION ORDER

1The Applicant was self-represented when this case proceeded to Stage 3 - Tribunal Decision. Upon the start of the hearing, the Applicant indicated to the Tribunal that he intended to designate Mr. Peter Georgakopoulos, a friend and neighbour, as his representative (“Mr. Georgakopoulos”) and that he would be updating the Tribunal's online system accordingly.

2The Respondent Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2338 (“TSCC 2338”) responded by stating that Mr. Georgakopoulos is another unit owner of TSCC 2338 and that he is involved in his own Stage 3 proceeding at the CAT in regard to a request for various core records that he addressed to TSCC 2338 on October 7, 2025, being approximately fifteen (15) days after the Applicant submitted his request for various records on September 22, 2025. Both this application and that of Mr. Georgakopoulos raise identical issues (i.e., refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse and whether a penalty should be imposed for that refusal). In these circumstances, TSCC 2338 is now seeking to disqualify Mr. Georgakopoulos as the Applicant’s representative for the purposes of this application.

3In light of the above, I requested submissions from the parties as to whether the Applicant should be allowed to designate Mr. Georgakopoulos as his representative. Given that there were still some outstanding questions and issues after the initial submissions, I requested supplementary submissions from both parties, especially in regard to the applicability of Rule 9.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (“Rules”).

4TSCC 2338 asserts that Mr. Georgakopoulos does not qualify as a representative under the Rules, more specifically Rule 9.1, which states that:

A Party may be represented by:

(a) a lawyer or paralegal licensed by the Law Society of Ontario; or

(b) a person who is exempt from the Law Society’s licensing requirements. This includes a friend or family member who is helping without receiving any fee, or a person who is a licensed condominium manager.

5I note here that since Mr. Georgakopoulos is not a lawyer or paralegal and does not therefore qualify to represent a party in accordance with Rule 9.1 (a), he could be designated as the Applicant’s representative under the criteria which are set out in Rule 9.1 (b).

6TSCC 2338 takes the position that Mr. Georgakopoulos does not meet these criteria and that the Applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he and Mr. Georgakopoulos have any relationship beyond the circumstances of this case.

7TSCC 2338 also argues that in addition to determining whether the requirements of Rule 9.1(b) have been met, this Tribunal must consider the application of s. 30(4) of the LSO’s By-Law No. 4 (“LSO By-Law”) in assessing whether Mr. Georgakopoulos would obtain a “gain or reward, direct or indirect” for acting as the Applicant’s representative. The relevant provisions of that by-law allow a friend or a neighbour to represent someone, as long as they are an individual:

i. whose profession or occupation is not and does not include the provision of legal services or the practice of law,

ii. who provides the legal services only for and on behalf of a friend or a neighbour,

iii. who provides the legal services in respect of not more than three matters per year, and

iv. who does not expect and does not receive any compensation, including a fee, gain or reward, direct or indirect, for the provision of the legal services.

8TSCC 2338 submits that because Mr. Georgakopoulos’ case involves similar facts and legal issues as in this case, Mr. Georgakopoulos will receive a direct or indirect gain because the decision in this case will have a direct impact on the outcome of his case. TSCC 2338 further argues that Mr. Georgakopoulos’ case also involved settlement discussions before the Stage 3 – Hearing and that due to the confidentiality of settlement offers in any case before this Tribunal, TSCC 2338 is unsure whether Mr. Georgakopoulos and the Applicant have disclosed TSCC 2338 settlement offers to each other, which would prejudice TSCC 2338 and benefit Mr. Georgakopoulos.

9For his part, the Applicant takes the position that Mr. Georgakopoulos would be assisting him by representing him as a friend, as provided for by Rule 9.1(b).

10The Applicant states that he knows Mr. Georgakopoulos as a result of living in the same condominium community as him for many years, that they have interacted socially outside the Tribunal process and that their relationship predates their current and respective cases before this Tribunal. He therefore states that he considers him a trusted friend within their condominium community.

11The Applicant adds that Mr. Georgakopoulos would not receive any fee for acting as his representative.

12In regard to the LSO By-Law, he adds that this is the first matter in 2026 in which Mr. Georgakopoulos would assist another person and that Mr. Georgakopoulos’ own case before the Tribunal is his own proceeding, not a matter in which he represents another person. According to the Applicant, Mr. Georgakopoulos would not receive any gain or reward, either directly or indirectly, as a result of acting as his representative.

13In regard to any settlement discussions prior to the Stage 3 – Hearing in their respective cases, the Applicant states that he and Mr. Georgakopoulos have not disclosed any such settlement offers or communications to each other and that TSCC 2338 has not provided any evidence of any breach of confidentiality, conflict, prejudice, unfairness, or abuse of process. He adds that any concern in that regard can be managed by proper directions in each case to proceed on its own record.

14In sum, the Applicant states that there is no rule, guide, or direction that creates an automatic disqualification for someone to be designated as a representative, merely because a proposed representative also has a separate active case of his own before the same Tribunal.

15As stated by this Tribunal in a case which raised a similar question as in this case:

It is incumbent on the Tribunal to ensure the integrity of its process which includes ensuring that a party’s representative may act in that capacity pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice. At the same time, the Tribunal recognizes that the selection of a representative is a highly personal decision for a party and is likely based on a number of factors, including competence, skill, cost, personal compatibility, among others. The removal of a chosen representative should not be done lightly and without an appropriate legal basis for doing so: see Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation No. 382 v. Marrazzo, 2024 ONCAT 75, at paragraph 6. (‘Wentworth”)

16Having reviewed the submissions from both parties, the starting point of my analysis is Rule 9.1(b) which states that a representative may not receive a fee. I interpret the spirit of that condition to mean that a representative will not stand to gain from his or her representation of a party and I found the LSO By-Law to be helpful in analyzing this issue. Based on the information before me, I am not persuaded that Mr. Georgakopoulos would stand to benefit from a gain or reward, either directly or indirectly, as set out in the LSO By-Law. As a result, I am satisfied that the Applicant could designate Mr. Georgakopoulos as his representative, in his capacity as a friend and in accordance with Rule 9.1(b).

17In the circumstances of this case, I accept the Applicant’s submission that he has known Mr. Georgakopoulos for quite some time prior to this Tribunal proceeding, that they have interacted socially outside these proceedings and that he considers Mr. Georgakopoulos to be a trusted friend within the condominium community. In addition, I do not see how Mr. Georgakopoulos would receive a gain, either directly or indirectly, nor how the decision in one case would have a direct impact on the outcome of the other case since the two cases would proceed on their own merits, as directed by the respective Tribunal member who would hear and decide each case.

18Notwithstanding my conclusion that the Applicant could designate Mr. Georgakopoulos as his representative under Rule 9.1(b), I must also consider this matter in light of Rule 9.6 which provides that the Tribunal:

…may disqualify a Representative that is not licensed by the Law Society of Ontario from appearing before it if the Representative’s appearance would lead to an abuse of process.

19As mentioned above, the application to this Tribunal submitted by Mr. Georgakopoulos is about a dispute regarding a request for records which he submitted to TSCC 2338 on October 7, 2025.

20In the Applicant’s case, his application is also about a dispute regarding a request for records which he submitted to TSCC 2338 on September 22, 2025. The Applicant’s request seeks copies of the same records as in the case of Mr. Georgakopoulos, with the sole difference being that Mr. Georgakopoulos is also seeking copies of additional records specified in a by-law of TSCC 2338.

21Based on the above and on the facts of these two applications, TSCC 2338 argues that allowing the Applicant to designate Mr. Georgakopoulos as his representative would result in an abuse of process. It submits that the Applicant’s case and that of Mr. Georgakopoulos are duplicative proceedings regarding identical records, save for one record requested by Mr. Georgakopoulos. It adds that their respective requests for records were submitted only a mere fifteen (15) days apart and that this Tribunal is called upon to decide the same issues in both cases. TSCC 2338 therefore adds that there is a risk that this Tribunal could issue inconsistent decisions on the same issues in an almost identical fact situation. As a final point, TSCC 2338 submits that Mr. Georgakopoulos has failed to demonstrate that he is able to keep his issues with TSCC 2338 separate from the Applicant’s claims in this application.

22For his part, the Applicant submits that TSCC 2338 has failed to identify a proper basis in support of its claim of an abuse of process in the context of this case.

23As it turns out, this Tribunal issued its decision in the case brought by Mr. Georgakopoulos shortly after the parties had filed their supplementary submissions in regard to this matter: see Georgakopoulos v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2338, 2026 ONCAT 92 (“Georgakopoulos”).

24I acknowledge that this Tribunal may disqualify a proposed representative if it would lead to an abuse of process but in light of the development in the Georgakopoulos case and in the circumstances of this case, I am not persuaded that there is any such risk simply because the proposed representative has previously litigated against the same respondent (i.e. TSCC 2338) about similar alleged violations of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”).

ORDER

25The Tribunal orders that:

1. the request by TSCC 2338 to disqualify Mr. Georgakopoulos as the Applicant’s proposed representative is dismissed.

Roger Bilodeau

Member, Condominium Authority Tribunal