David Thiel

The applicant condominium corporation brought a case against the respondent unit owners for ongoing complaints about noise, smoke, unauthorized pets, and other nuisances caused by the residents and guests of their unit.

The respondents did not meaningfully participate in the proceedings.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the conduct breached the condominium's declaration and rules, as well as the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately cease the prohibited conduct and to pay the applicant's costs and compensation for legal expenses incurred.

The applicant condominium owner brought an application regarding unreasonable noise from a garage grate and noise/exhaust from an emergency generator vent.

The respondent condominium corporations brought a preliminary motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the issues related to the repair and maintenance of common elements under sections 89 and 90 of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over the garage grate issue as it was clearly a repair and maintenance matter.

However, the Tribunal found it was not clear that the generator vent issue was solely a repair and maintenance matter, and ordered that evidence would be heard on that issue.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant unit owner's noise nuisance application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant complained of disruptive noise from water pipes, which she argued constituted a nuisance under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the noise resulted from the activities of another person, concluding it likely stemmed from the aging plumbing infrastructure.

As the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over repair and maintenance disputes under ss. 89 and 90 of the Act, the application was dismissed.

No costs were awarded due to the respondent's delay in raising the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant condominium corporation alleged that the respondent commercial tenant was parking or storing vehicles on the common elements in violation of the condominium's declaration and rules.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent removed three of the five vehicles, leaving two commercial vehicles with snowplow attachments.

The Tribunal found that the presence of the two remaining vehicles did not violate the rules or unreasonably interfere with other owners' use of the common elements.

However, because the respondent's earlier non-compliance caused the applicant to incur legal costs to secure compliance, the Tribunal ordered the intervenor unit owner to pay $903.05 in compensation and $150 in Tribunal costs.

The applicant condominium owner challenged the fees estimated by the respondent condominium corporation for the production of non-core records.

The Tribunal found the $600 labour fee to be a reasonable estimate but denied the $48 photocopying fee because the records were requested in electronic format.

Due to the applicant's persistently unreasonable and disruptive conduct during the proceeding, the Tribunal awarded the respondent $4,800 in legal costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a case to enforce pet provisions against the respondent.

The respondent sought accommodation under the Human Rights Code to keep her dog and requested a confidentiality order to protect her privacy regarding the reasons for the accommodation.

The Tribunal granted the confidentiality order, noting the applicant's consent and the need to protect the respondent's dignity and well-being, sealing specific exhibits and online hearing message threads.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to remove the respondent's German Shepherd, which exceeded the condominium's weight and breed restrictions.

The respondent sought accommodation under the Human Rights Code, arguing the dog was necessary for her Code-related needs.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the dog was indispensable to the respondent and that the applicant failed to demonstrate that accommodating the dog would cause undue hardship.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent was permitted to keep the dog.

Costs of $6,250 were awarded to the respondent.

During mediation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal, the respondent advised the self-represented applicant that another condominium corporation needed to be added to the proceeding due to a shared facilities agreement.

The parties consented to the addition.

The Tribunal ordered the current case closed and directed the applicant to open a new case including both respondents, with the new case proceeding directly to Stage 2 mediation at no additional cost to the applicant.