Greg Marley

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking information about proxy submissions and vote tallies from an annual general meeting.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to order the production of information, as opposed to records, and that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of its Rules of Practice, noting that the applicant's late request for a dashboard copy was an improper attempt to change the nature of the request.

The applicant filed a case regarding noise complaints but failed to advance the matter past the negotiation stage for almost a year.

The applicant also used profanities on the tribunal's platform contrary to the Rules of Practice.

Despite warnings from tribunal staff, the applicant did not move the case to mediation.

The tribunal concluded the case was filed for an improper purpose and dismissed the application, noting the applicant's failure to make a meaningful effort to resolve the dispute.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that cigarette smoke and odour from the neighbouring respondent's unit constituted a nuisance under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and that the condominium corporation failed to enforce its rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the smoke odour from the respondent's unit was unreasonable and substantially interfered with the applicant's enjoyment of her unit.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to permanently cease smoking in his unit.

The Tribunal also found that the condominium corporation had taken reasonable steps to investigate and address the complaints, fulfilling its obligations under the Act.

The applicant condominium owner submitted a request for records seeking copies of emails he had sent to the respondent condominium corporation.

The corporation could not readily produce the emails because the electronic file obtained from its former management company was not searchable.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation had not refused to provide the records without reasonable excuse, as it had made reasonable efforts to retrieve them and the applicant already possessed copies of the requested emails.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $500 in costs for pursuing the application for the improper purpose of sanctioning a former condominium manager.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, challenged the respondent condominium corporation's amendment to its declaration regarding visitor parking.

The applicant alleged that the corporation failed to comply with subsection 107(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998, which requires a meeting of owners to consider the proposed amendment.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation had properly introduced the amendment at an annual general meeting, provided the required notice, and obtained the necessary owner consents.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding responses to records requests and public disparagement.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation breached the agreement by failing to provide required statements explaining redactions and actual costs for a records request.

However, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the applicant's claims regarding public disparagement and harassment under the settlement agreement.

The corporation was ordered to provide the missing statements, and no costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant unit owner sought access to proxy records from the respondent condominium corporation's annual general meeting.

The applicant disputed the fees estimated by the respondent, arguing that proxies are core records and should be provided without cost, and challenged the labour and printing rates.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal held that proxies are non-core records subject to fees.

The Tribunal found the estimated labour rate of $30 per hour to be reasonable but ordered the printing costs reduced to $0.012 per page.

The applicant was awarded her $200 filing fee, but her request for a penalty was denied.

The applicant requested a minor correction to a final decision issued by the Condominium Authority Tribunal, seeking to amend a paragraph referencing a date on a request for records form.

The applicant wanted the exact text and checklist box from the form reproduced.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, removing the quotation marks around the date to ensure accuracy, but declined to reproduce the exact text and checklist box, noting that the Tribunal's discretion to correct decisions is not intended to accommodate a party's writing preference.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking access to various corporate records, including board meeting minutes and monthly financial statements.

The tribunal found that while the applicant was entitled to the requested records, the draft monthly financial statements were non-core records subject to reasonable production fees.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent had ultimately provided all requested records and rectified its initial failure to use the prescribed response forms.

The applicant's requests for costs and a penalty were dismissed due to his problematic behaviour during the hearing and the lack of a clear refusal by the respondent.