Gareth Stackhouse

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a disputed chargeback for a leak, framing it as a records dispute about the accuracy of the owner ledger.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application under Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over maintenance and repair chargebacks.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the core issue was the validity of the chargeback rather than a records dispute, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a unit owner in a vacant land condominium corporation, filed two cases with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking various records, including as-built drawings, turnover records, an unredacted consent application, and records relating to a specific by-law.

The Tribunal found that the condominium corporation had a reasonable excuse for not providing many of the requested records, as they either did not exist or were not in the corporation's possession.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to provide written authorization to the local municipality to release an unredacted copy of the consent application to the applicant, and to include an addendum in its annual general meeting minutes clarifying the circumstances of a ratifying vote for the by-law.

The applicant was awarded reimbursement of Tribunal filing fees, but no legal costs or penalties were ordered.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to comply with noise and nuisance rules, alleging the respondent played music at excessive volumes.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing but had previously claimed the music was to drown out noises from neighbours.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the respondent's conduct constituted an unreasonable nuisance in violation of the condominium's declaration, rules, and section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease creating excessive noise and to pay $5,805 in costs and compensation to the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against the respondent owners and their tenant for excessive noise and nuisance.

The owners settled with the corporation, but the tenant did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the tenant had created unreasonable noise in violation of the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules.

The tenant was ordered to comply with the rules and pay $2,125 in costs to the corporation.

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.

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.