Darlene Mezzabotta

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to remove her 28.80 kg dog, Murphy, and to cease bringing other large dogs onto the property in breach of the pet rules.

The respondent claimed she was entitled to keep Murphy as an emotional support animal under the Human Rights Code and that the rules did not prohibit visiting dogs.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the rules by operating a dog-walking business and bringing other large dogs onto the property, ordering her to cease this conduct.

However, the Tribunal held that the respondent established a disability and a need for accommodation, allowing her to keep Murphy.

The applicant was awarded partial costs.

The parties reached a settlement in Stage 3 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the tenant to comply with the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules regarding nuisance, parking, and storage, subject to specific exemptions for the tenant's business operations.

The tenant was also ordered to pay $13,000 in costs to the corporation.

The parties agreed to settle a condominium dispute regarding nuisance, parking, and storage rules through the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the tenant to comply with the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules, and requiring the owner to take reasonable steps to ensure the tenant's compliance.

The tenant agreed to pay $5,000 in costs to the corporation.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, alleged their neighbour created a nuisance due to dog waste odour and that the condominium corporation failed to enforce its rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found insufficient evidence of unreasonable odour but determined the neighbour's use of chemical cleaners on the shared privacy fence constituted a nuisance.

The Tribunal ordered the neighbour to move the litter box, cease allowing dogs to urinate on the fence, and stop spraying chemicals.

The Tribunal found the condominium corporation adequately investigated the complaints despite communication gaps.

The applicants were awarded $100 in damages and $200 in Tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation sought compliance orders against a tenant for creating a nuisance through cannabis and tobacco smoke, and against the unit owners for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the tenant's compliance.

The Tribunal found that the tenant breached the corporation's rules and the Condominium Act, and that the owners failed to take timely and decisive action to obtain compliance.

However, because the tenant had vacated the unit prior to the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal declined to issue compliance orders.

The owners were ordered to pay $2,560 in costs and damages to the corporation.

The applicant condominium corporation alleged that the respondent commercial unit owners and their tenant violated the condominium rules by parking heavy trucks, storing steel beams, and creating a nuisance on the common elements.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing their activities constituted stopping and unloading rather than parking and storing.

The Tribunal dismissed the jurisdictional motion due to a lack of evidence from the respondents.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove most of its allegations, as the photographic and video evidence did not connect the vehicles or activities to the respondents.

However, based on undisputed correspondence, the Tribunal found that the respondents violated the rules on one occasion by leaving a trailer on the common elements and on another occasion by storing debris.

The nuisance claim was dismissed.

The respondents were ordered to comply with the rules and pay $1,800 in compensation and filing fees.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent owner and tenants to comply with its governing documents regarding pets.

The tenants' two dogs had repeatedly attacked other dogs and urinated on common elements, leading the board to deem them a nuisance.

The owner failed to take steps to ensure the tenants' compliance.

The Tribunal found that both the owner and tenants breached their obligations, ordered the permanent removal of the dogs, and awarded enforcement costs and legal fees to the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application alleging the respondent owner created a nuisance through hoarding, pest infestation, and odour, in violation of section 117(2) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal raised a preliminary issue regarding its jurisdiction, noting that allegations of fire risk and health and safety issues fall under section 117(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the application concerned health and safety issues, which are outside its jurisdiction, and that the odour issue could not be separated from the underlying hoarding and pest concerns.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to comply with noise and nuisance rules, alleging the respondent played music at excessive volumes.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing but had previously claimed the music was to drown out noises from neighbours.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the respondent's conduct constituted an unreasonable nuisance in violation of the condominium's declaration, rules, and section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease creating excessive noise and to pay $5,805 in costs and compensation to the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against the respondent owners and their tenant for excessive noise and nuisance.

The owners settled with the corporation, but the tenant did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the tenant had created unreasonable noise in violation of the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules.

The tenant was ordered to comply with the rules and pay $2,125 in costs to the corporation.