Emily Deng

The applicant condominium owner filed an application regarding the respondent condominium corporation's decision to cut off power to an electrical outlet at his designated parking spot, which he used to charge his hybrid vehicle.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the dispute did not fall within its jurisdiction under s. 1(1)(d) of O. Reg. 179/17, as there were no provisions in the corporation's governing documents that specifically governed automobiles or parking in relation to the electrical outlets.

The application was dismissed.

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 condominium corporation and respondent owner reached a settlement in Stage 2 Mediation regarding the conduct of the respondent's tenant (the intervenor).

The intervenor failed to participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal waived Rule 34.3 to allow the consent order to proceed without the intervenor's participation.

The consent order requires the respondent to ensure its tenant complies with the Condominium Act and governing documents, and to issue an N5 eviction notice if further complaints regarding noise or harassment are received.

The applicant condominium owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached several terms of a settlement agreement regarding the production of records and payment of settlement funds.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent breached one term by failing to provide specific board meeting minutes, but noted the breach was resolved during the proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for a penalty, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order penalties for settlement agreement breaches.

The applicant was awarded her $125 filing fee, and the respondent's request for substantial indemnity costs was dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner and his tenant to cease smoking in their unit and on exclusive use common elements due to smoke migration.

The respondent had a legacy exemption allowing him to smoke, provided he took reasonable steps to prevent smoke migration.

The Tribunal found that smoke continued to migrate to the common elements and other units, and the respondent failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent and his tenant to immediately cease smoking in the unit and on the exclusive use common elements, and ordered the respondent to pay $2,500 in compensation and $3,200 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation alleged that the respondent unit owner breached a settlement agreement regarding his emotional support dog.

The agreement required the dog to wear an emotional support vest on common elements and for the respondent to provide proof of city registration.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the agreement by using a collar instead of a vest, and ordered compliance.

The Tribunal also found the respondent breached the registration provision but cured the breach during the hearing.

Costs of $875 were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant unit owner brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation for failing to provide requested records, including board meeting minutes, a maintenance and repair chart, and records related to fence repairs, mice, and mold.

The Tribunal found that the corporation failed to provide the July 2021 meeting minutes and fence repair records without a reasonable excuse, noting a lack of diligence and oversight by the board.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the maintenance chart, mice, and mold records, as those records did not exist and the corporation was not obligated to create them.

The corporation was ordered to pay a $750 penalty and $200 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a broad request for core and non-core records dating back to 2013.

The respondent corporation provided many records but refused to provide CMRAO and CAO orders and emails, arguing they were not required to be kept.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had received all core records and most non-core records she was entitled to, though some were provided late.

The Tribunal ruled that CMRAO and CAO orders and related emails are records the corporation is required to keep and ordered their production if they exist.

The Tribunal declined to impose a penalty due to the overly broad nature of the request and the corporation's eventual compliance, but ordered the corporation to reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.