5 total
Condominium owner's application regarding alleged vaping odours dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant unit owner alleged she was experiencing unreasonable odours from vaping by the occupant of an adjacent unit, in violation of the condominium corporation's non-smoking rules.
She sought an order compelling the corporation to enforce its rules.
The Tribunal found that the evidence, including air quality testing results, did not establish the presence of unreasonable odours or that the adjacent occupant was vaping.
The application was dismissed without costs.
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a condominium owner's oppression application and enforced a lien for a special assessment.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of her oppression application and the granting of summary judgment to enforce a condominium lien.
The appeal concerned whether a special assessment for repairs was remedial work under s. 97(1) of the Condominium Act, thereby not requiring a member vote, and whether the condominium's conduct constituted oppression.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's determination that the work was remedial, upheld the oppression analysis, and affirmed the summary judgment, concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.
Condominium oppression application regarding neighbour's medical equipment noise dismissed as corporation acted reasonably.
The applicant condominium owner sought an oppression remedy against the condominium corporation regarding nighttime noise from the unit above, which was generated by medical equipment and nursing care for a disabled child.
The court found that the corporation had investigated the complaints, obtained expert reports, and acted reasonably.
The application was dismissed as the corporation had no authority to compel the neighbouring owner to renovate their unit, and the corporation's conduct was not oppressive.
Condominium corporation's 25-pound weight restriction on an emotional support animal upheld as a reasonable accommodation.
The applicant unit owner sought an exemption from the condominium corporation's 'no pets' rule to accommodate her son's need for an emotional support animal (ESA).
The applicant acquired a Labrador dog expected to weigh 60-70 pounds.
The condominium corporation agreed to accommodate the ESA but imposed a 25-pound weight restriction.
The Tribunal found that while the corporation's Service Animal Policy and exemption procedures were invalid attempts to bypass statutory rule-making requirements, the 25-pound weight limit was a reasonable condition of accommodation under the Human Rights Code.
The application was dismissed.
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction denied; Tribunal has jurisdiction over condominium pet rules.
The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application on the basis that the Condominium Authority Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily concerning the Human Rights Code.
The applicant sought an exemption from the corporation's pet rule to allow her son to keep an emotional support animal that exceeded the corporation's 25-pound weight limit.
The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that because the dispute involved the validity and enforceability of the corporation's pet rule and emotional support animal policy, it fell squarely within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
