9 total
Condominium Authority Tribunal application withdrawn and case closed following settlement between the parties.
The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.
After the case proceeded to Stage 3, the applicant 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 under Rule 43.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, with standard confidentiality orders regarding settlement discussions.
Consent order issued requiring condominium corporation to provide records and pay $375 to applicant.
The applicant, a condominium owner, sought access to records from the respondent condominium corporation.
The parties reached a settlement during the mediation stage of the Condominium Authority Tribunal process.
The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide the applicant with redacted financial statements and an audio/video recording of the annual general meeting.
The respondent was also ordered to pay $75 for Tribunal filing fees and $300 for the denial of access to records.
Condominium corporation ordered to reimburse unit owner for acoustical tests after failing to investigate noise nuisance.
The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application against the condominium corporation alleging unreasonable noise from heat pumps in the units above and below hers.
The Tribunal found that the noise constituted a nuisance and that the corporation failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and enforce compliance with the condominium's rules.
The Tribunal ordered the corporation to reimburse the applicant for the cost of her acoustical engineering reports and awarded costs.
Condominium records application dismissed early as the requested records had already been provided.
The applicant condominium owner filed a request for records seeking proxies from an annual general meeting and a list of owners and mortgagees.
The respondent condominium corporation provided the redacted proxies and uploaded the list of owners during Stage 2 of the tribunal process.
The applicant sought further information and requested to proceed to Stage 3.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and ultimately dismissed the application under Rule 19.1, finding that the requested records had been provided and the Tribunal had no legal power to hear or decide the remaining issues.
Costs awarded against self-represented condominium owner for grossly unreasonable conduct during hearing.
The respondent and intervenor sought legal costs following the dismissal of the applicant's condominium dispute.
The Tribunal found that while the self-represented applicant's introduction of extraneous issues was merely unreasonable, her persistent refusal to follow directions and her unexcused absence from a scheduled hearing day constituted grossly unreasonable conduct.
The Tribunal awarded partial legal costs and disbursements against the applicant.
Furthermore, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to order the respondent to add the intervenor's costs to the applicant's common expenses.
Condominium owner's human rights application for an electric vehicle charging station dismissed for lack of discrimination.
The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought an order permitting her to use electric vehicle charging stations in the shared visitor parking area, or alternatively, requiring the condominium corporation to install a dedicated charging station at its expense.
She argued that the restriction on visitor parking violated the Condominium Act regulations, the AODA, and her right to accommodation for a physical disability under the Human Rights Code.
The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the statutory provisions did not grant her the right to use the visitor parking or compel the installation of a charger.
Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish discrimination based on her disability, as her request related to her preference for an electric vehicle rather than a disability-related need, and she had already refused a reasonable accommodation offered by the corporation.
Motion for late disclosure of security camera footage granted with time for rebuttal evidence.
The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion for late disclosure of security camera footage in an ongoing dispute regarding the installation of an electric vehicle charging station as a disability accommodation.
The applicant opposed the motion but did not claim prejudice, arguing the footage was not inconsistent with her disability.
The Tribunal granted the motion, noting its power to control its own process and allowing the applicant two weeks to provide rebuttal evidence.
Condominium application regarding electric vehicle charging dismissed as statute-barred.
The applicant condominium owner sought an order permitting her to use the visitor parking area to charge her electric vehicle or requiring the condominium corporations to install an electric vehicle charging station.
The respondent and intervenor condominium corporations brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the limitation period had expired.
The Tribunal found that the dispute arose on March 1, 2017, when the applicant was denied permission to use the visitor parking area.
As the application was brought more than three years after the dispute arose, it was statute-barred under section 1.36 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
The application was dismissed.
Condominium rule prohibiting smoking on exclusive use balconies upheld as reasonable and enforceable against unit owners.
The applicant condominium corporation brought an application for a compliance order against the respondent unit owners, who continued to smoke on their balcony in violation of a newly passed rule prohibiting smoking on exclusive use balconies.
The respondents argued that they owned a portion of the balcony exclusively, that the rule was improperly passed, and that the rule was unreasonable or should have included a grandparenting clause.
The court found that the entire balcony was an exclusive use common element, the rule was properly passed, and the rule was reasonable given the context of second-hand smoke and nuisance.
The court granted the application and ordered the respondents to cease smoking on their balcony immediately.
