Christopher Mendes

The applicant unit owner sought records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 Mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

By consent, the tribunal ordered the respondent to provide redacted legal invoices showing only the total amounts, and to reimburse the applicant's $75.00 tribunal filing fee.

No penalty or further costs were awarded.

The applicant condominium owner sought to enforce a settlement agreement against the respondent condominium corporation regarding noise from the unit above.

The Tribunal found that the corporation had complied with the enforceable terms of the agreement by sending a warning letter and conducting noise testing.

The Tribunal held that the remaining terms requiring the corporation to force the upstairs owners to change their flooring were unenforceable because the upstairs owners were not parties to the original proceeding or the settlement agreement, violating procedural fairness.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal challenging a rule that closed the indoor pool from September to May, arguing it caused a nuisance.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that a rule setting a seasonal schedule for a pool does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction over provisions governing nuisances, annoyances, or disruptions.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to mediation.

After being given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3, the applicant failed to take any steps to do so for more than 15 days.

The Tribunal ordered the case closed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent to remove her dog, which exceeded the 9 kg weight limit and exhibited aggressive behaviour.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing but had previously claimed the dog was a service animal requiring accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the respondent failed to establish a disability or disability-related need for a dog exceeding the weight limit.

The Tribunal upheld the board's determination that the dog was a nuisance and ordered its removal, along with costs to the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application alleging the respondent unit owner and her tenant failed to comply with a declaration prohibiting Doberman dogs.

The tenant kept a dog that appeared to be a Doberman mix, and the owner failed to provide veterinary documentation confirming the breed when requested.

The Tribunal found noncompliance with the declaration and ordered the removal of the dog within 21 days, unless a satisfactory letter from a licensed veterinarian confirming the dog is not a prohibited breed is provided.

The respondent was also ordered to pay $1,700 in costs.

In a condominium dispute, personal medical information was submitted as evidence.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal reviewed the information and found it to be highly sensitive.

Pursuant to Rule 21.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal issued a confidentiality order, deeming specific exhibits confidential and excluding them from the public record to protect the individuals' privacy.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order requiring the respondent owner to remove her dog from her unit, citing the corporation's 'no pet' declaration and rules.

The respondent argued the dog was an emotional support animal and sought accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient medical evidence establishing a disability that required accommodation.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to permanently remove the dog within 14 days and to pay $200 in Tribunal costs, though it declined to award the corporation its legal fees.

The applicant condominium owner sought records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The matter was resolved by a consent order during Stage 2 Mediation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The respondent agreed to provide the requested board meeting minutes, quotations, and opinions regarding a pine tree, subject to statutory redactions.

The respondent also agreed to pay the applicant $75 for tribunal fees and an additional $500.