Darryl Fulton

The applicant unit owner submitted a request for condominium records, specifically board meeting minutes.

The respondent condominium corporation failed to respond within the required 30 days and refused to provide the records, citing suspicions about the requester's identity and demanding proof of authorization.

The Tribunal found that the owner made the request and the corporation's failure to verify her identity in a timely manner constituted a refusal without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to provide the records at no cost, pay a $1,000 penalty, and reimburse the applicant's $200 Tribunal filing fee.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent breached a prior settlement agreement by failing to pay $75.

The parties agreed to settle the matter in Stage 3 of the Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to pay the $75 plus postage, as well as reimburse the applicant for the $125 filing fee.

The applicant, a unit owner and board member, sought an order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to invoke a dispute resolution process under a shared facilities agreement to obtain a document from another condominium corporation regarding the procurement of an insurance policy.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the requested document likely did not exist and was not a record the respondent was obliged to maintain under the Condominium Act, 1998.

Consequently, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to order the requested relief and declined to award a penalty or costs.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding noise complaints and a request for records.

During Stage 2 mediation, the respondent provided the requested letters and occurrence reports.

After a period of inactivity, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he would pursue his remaining issues elsewhere and that the case could be closed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 17.1(e) of the CAT's Rules of Practice.