Elisha Turney Foss

The Applicant, a condominium owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the Respondent corporation refused to provide requested records without reasonable excuse, provided inadequate records, and charged unreasonable fees.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent's minor delays and waiting for third-party documents did not constitute a refusal without reasonable excuse, and thus no penalty was warranted.

While most records provided were deemed adequate, the Tribunal found the record of notices of lease to be inadequate under s. 55(1) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal upheld the Respondent's $30 hourly labour fee for record production as reasonable and awarded the Applicant $200 in costs for partial success.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested various records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The corporation delayed providing the Reserve Fund Study because it was in draft form, and charged fees for redacting invoices, bank statements, and a Performance Audit Tracking Summary.

The Tribunal found that the corporation was not required to provide the draft Reserve Fund Study and had provided the finalized version appropriately.

The Tribunal also found that the corporation's estimated fees for redacting the non-core records, based on a $30 hourly rate, were reasonable.

No costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant condominium owner sought various records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent delayed in responding to the requests and refused to provide certain records, citing that they were drafts, non-existent, or related to specific owners.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's delay in responding constituted a refusal without reasonable excuse.

While the applicant was not entitled to draft documents, non-existent records, or broad communications deemed a 'fishing expedition', he was entitled to the Keller Engineering contract and Notices of Change.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $500 penalty for the delay and refusal, plus $200 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner and tenant to permanently remove a dog from the unit, alleging a breach of the corporation's pet prohibition rules.

The tenant claimed the dog was an emotional support animal but provided falsified medical notes.

The respondents failed to participate in the hearing.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the respondents in breach of the pet provisions and ordered the permanent removal of the dog within 30 days.

The tribunal also awarded $4,200 in costs to the applicant on a joint and several basis.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Condominium Authority Tribunal after the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested accounting records.

During mandatory mediation, the parties reached a settlement.

The tribunal issued a consent order wherein the respondent acknowledged its failure to provide the records without reasonable excuse contrary to the Condominium Act and agreed to reimburse the applicant's filing fees.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for core and non-core records to the respondent condominium corporation.

The applicant alleged that the respondent failed to provide all requested records, charged inappropriate fees for core records, and provided inadequate invoices.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide certain meeting minutes without reasonable excuse, warranting a $400 penalty, and improperly charged $307.60 for core records, which must be reimbursed.

However, the Tribunal held that the recreated notices of lease and the third-party invoices provided were adequate under the Condominium Act.

The applicant was awarded her $200 filing fee, but her request for $4,000 in costs for time spent was denied.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that the issues in dispute had been resolved and requested 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 filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

After the case proceeded to Stage 2 mediation, the applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fee within 15 days.

The Tribunal ordered the case closed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 3.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 43.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent corporation failed to provide requested records relating to a lobby renovation.

The respondent had provided the reserve fund study but withheld correspondence with legal consultants, citing the litigation exemption under s. 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act and solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal found that the withheld records were protected by solicitor-client privilege and the litigation exemption, and that some requested records did not exist.

The application was dismissed without costs or penalties.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested core and non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation, including board minutes and HVAC inspection reports.

The applicant disputed the adequacy of the records provided and the $360 labour fee charged for redacting and producing the non-core records.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the records provided were adequate and that the corporation did not withhold any existing records.

However, the Tribunal found the eight-hour labour estimate for producing the records was unreasonable and reduced the allowable fee to five hours of labour at $45 per hour.

No penalty or costs were awarded.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent owner and tenant breached a prior settlement agreement by parking in visitor spaces and designated fire routes.

The Tribunal found that the respondents breached the settlement agreement on multiple occasions based on evidence from board members and the property manager.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to comply with the agreement and to pay the applicant's legal costs and Tribunal fees on a joint and several basis.