Dawn Wickett

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application alleging the respondent tenant failed to comply with a prior settlement agreement.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached multiple terms of the agreement, including smoking on common elements, parking violations, and causing damage to the parking gate.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the settlement agreement and to pay compensation and legal costs incurred by the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against a unit owner for failing to comply with its pet rules, which prohibit dogs weighing over 25 pounds.

The respondent did not participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had kept an oversized dog in her unit and allowed a visitor to bring an oversized dog onto the property.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the pet rules and awarded the applicant compensation for pre-litigation enforcement costs, partial indemnity legal costs, and the Tribunal filing fee.

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 condominium corporation brought an application against the unit owners and the occupant for breaching the corporation's governing documents regarding noise and parking.

The occupant repeatedly parked in visitor parking and fire lanes, and created unreasonable noise.

The unit owners failed to ensure the occupant's compliance and did not respond to the corporation's communications.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the unit owners and the occupant breached the governing documents.

The Tribunal ordered them to comply and ordered the unit owners to pay compensation for enforcement costs and legal costs.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against a unit owner and her tenant for failing to comply with the corporation's pet rules.

The tenant repeatedly failed to clean up her dogs' droppings from the exclusive use common elements yard, and the unit owner failed to take steps to ensure the tenant's compliance despite multiple notices.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found both the tenant and the unit owner in breach of the governing documents and the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered both respondents to comply with the rules and ordered the unit owner to reimburse the applicant's filing fee, but declined to order the permanent removal of the dogs or compensation for enforcement costs.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal of their wish to withdraw the case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant unit owner sought an order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to provide a copy of the property management report presented at the annual general meeting.

The respondent argued that the manager delivered a verbal report using personal notes, which are not records of the corporation.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that personal notes not incorporated into the meeting minutes do not constitute corporate records.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant unit owner filed an application disputing an $800 indemnification charge levied by the respondent condominium corporation.

The charge was for a compliance letter sent to the applicant's tenant regarding alleged abusive behaviour, which the corporation characterized as workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and section 117(1) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under O. Reg 179/17 to hear disputes relating to section 117(1) of the Condominium Act.

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, a unit owner, filed an application alleging harassment by other unit owners and board members, seeking $10,000 for emotional distress.

The respondent condominium corporation challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the claims fell under section 117(1) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal determined that because the applicant alleged the harassment caused emotional and psychological injuries, the matter fell under section 117(1), which is explicitly excluded from the Tribunal's jurisdiction by O. Reg 179/17.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against a unit owner and occupants for breaching rules regarding smoking and noise.

The respondents did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the occupants repeatedly smoked in the unit and common elements, and created unreasonable noise, contrary to the condominium's rules.

The unit owner failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to comply with the rules and to pay partial compensation for enforcement costs and legal fees.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that the respondent condominium corporations breached a settlement agreement regarding the remediation of noise and odour from an exhaust stack, as well as a confidentiality provision.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the remediation terms because the noise and odour stemmed from a condition of the property rather than an activity carried out by a person, which falls outside section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal also found no breach of the confidentiality term regarding the delivery of update letters.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application alleging the respondent unit owner breached a settlement agreement by continuing to smoke in her unit.

The respondent admitted to smoking in her unit on at least one occasion after the settlement agreement was executed.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement agreement and ordered her to comply with the corporation's rules prohibiting smoking on the property.

The respondent was also ordered to reimburse the applicant for the $125 filing fee.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application alleging the respondent owner and tenant breached pet provisions.

During the Stage 3 hearing, the tenant vacated the unit, resolving the substantive issue.

The applicant and the respondent owner subsequently reached an agreement on costs and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the owner to pay $4,247.42 in costs to the condominium corporation, with no costs ordered against the tenant.

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

The applicant repeatedly failed to participate in the process.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for abandonment, to which neither party responded.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for abandonment.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Tribunal for an order requiring the respondent to permanently remove her dog from her unit, citing a breach of the condominium's rules.

The respondent argued the dog was an emotional support animal required for her mental health disability and requested an accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence provided by the respondent sufficiently established a mental disability under the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, allowing the respondent to keep her dog as an accommodation, and declined to award costs to the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application alleging the respondents breached its governing documents by affixing a bamboo privacy fence to their common elements balcony.

The tenant raised a preliminary issue regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the dispute related to section 98 of the Condominium Act, 1998, which governs alterations to common elements.

The applicant argued the fence constituted 'storage' on the balcony, bringing it within the Tribunal's jurisdiction under O. Reg 179/17.

The Tribunal found that the fence was being used daily for privacy and was not being 'stored' for future use.

Consequently, the dispute fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide all requested records and that the provided records were inadequate under s. 55(1) of the Condominium Act.

The respondent argued the request was invalid as it was not on the mandatory form.

The Tribunal found the altered form was substantively compliant and valid.

However, the Tribunal concluded the applicant received all records he was entitled to, and that the unapproved minutes and financial statements were not records of the corporation subject to adequacy review.

The application was dismissed without costs or penalties.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to respond to her request for records within 30 days and that the records provided were inadequate.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent eventually provided all requested records with appropriate redactions to protect other owners' privacy, the board meeting minutes were inadequate under subsection 55(1) of the Condominium Act.

The minutes were kept in a continuously edited spreadsheet and lacked basic details such as attendance, quorum, and voting records.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to maintain adequate records and pay the applicant's $200 filing fee, but declined to order a penalty as the delay was due to inexperience rather than a refusal without reasonable excuse.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application to enforce a no-pet provision against the respondent.

The respondent's counsel requested an adjournment of the hearing due to medical issues and upcoming treatments.

The applicant did not provide submissions opposing the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the medical concerns constituted a sufficient basis to delay the hearing, and rescheduled the matter to November 29, 2023.