Ian Darling

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a chargeback related to repair and maintenance issues with common elements, specifically ice build-up on balconies and mould.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of proposed dismissal under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that repair and maintenance issues fall under sections 89 to 92 of the Condominium Act, 1998, which are outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction as set out in Ontario Regulation 179/17.

The applicant unit owner filed a nuisance application against the respondent condominium corporation, disputing a $3,125.02 chargeback for damage to a common elements garage door.

The applicant alleged the damage was caused by the corporation's failure to maintain a ramp.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application without a hearing, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the dispute related to physical damage to the common elements under section 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, which falls outside the Tribunal's prescribed authority.

The applicant filed a records case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The application was incomplete and the applicant failed to correct the deficiencies within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the underlying records requests were deemed abandoned under s. 13.10 of O. Reg. 48/01.

The applicant requested the Tribunal Chair recuse himself due to alleged bias, which was denied.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as the records requests were deemed abandoned.

The applicant, a former board director, filed an application against the condominium corporation and a current director regarding the handling of noise complaints.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the issues were already being addressed in another open Tribunal case involving the individuals allegedly causing the nuisance.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an improper use of the Tribunal, noting it is unfair to allow two cases by the same applicant to proceed based on the same facts.

The applicant filed an application against a condominium management company regarding noise generated by building machinery.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application because it lacked jurisdiction over noise nuisances caused by machinery rather than a person's activity, and because the applicant named the management company instead of the condominium corporation.

The applicant failed to address these deficiencies after being issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant filed a records application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal against the respondent, from whom they purchased a unit.

The applicant alleged the respondent sold the unit without filing a declaration and requested disclosure statements.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the respondent was not a registered condominium corporation and the requested records did not fall within the prescribed disputes under Ontario Regulation 179/17.

The applicant unit owner filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal disputing a chargeback for water damage repairs and related legal fees.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that its jurisdiction over chargebacks is limited to specific areas and does not include chargebacks for water damage repairs.

The application was dismissed under Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a motion to reopen a Condominium Authority Tribunal case that had closed automatically due to inactivity, and sought to add issues regarding common elements and the appointment of an arbitrator.

The Tribunal applied the Frey v. MacDonald factors and found that the applicant provided no reasons to reopen the original records case.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction over the newly raised issues under sections 98 and 132 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The motion to reopen the case was dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation, represented by one of its three directors, filed an application against the other two directors regarding a governance dispute.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application due to concerns over whether a quorum of the board had authorized the application and whether the subject matter fell within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

After receiving conflicting responses from the opposing board members, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction over internal governance disputes and could not determine who had the authority to act on behalf of the corporation.

The applicant filed an application regarding a chargeback issued by the condominium corporation for water damage allegedly caused by the applicant's heating/cooling system.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, as the issue related to repairs and maintenance under sections 89 to 92 of the Condominium Act, 1998, which fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant's response relied on generative AI and cited non-existent cases.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction over the repairs and maintenance chargeback.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking information from the condominium corporation's insurance company regarding a claim.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the applicant was requesting information rather than a record the corporation is required to maintain under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, reiterating that its jurisdiction relates to records disputes, not requests for information or evaluations of corporate performance.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal disputing an $811.00 chargeback for a smoke detector repair.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the dispute related to repairs and maintenance, which falls outside its jurisdiction.

As the applicant failed to identify a relevant provision in the corporation's governing documents that would grant jurisdiction over the indemnification issue, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application seeking an order that the respondent condominium corporation comply with a prior settlement agreement.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of its Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any specific terms of the settlement agreement that were violated and that the application was filed beyond the six-month timeframe permitted by the agreement.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding the inclusion of owners' names in the condominium board's meeting minutes.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on its own motion at the intake stage under section 1.41(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal found the application was about minor issues, had no reasonable prospect of success, and was filed for an improper purpose, noting this was the applicant's tenth application and raised issues already addressed in prior decisions.

The applicant, a condominium owner previously restricted from filing new applications without permission, sought leave from the Tribunal to file a new application regarding a records request.

The respondent condominium corporation opposed the motion, arguing the application was filed beyond the 60-day limitation period after the board's response.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the records request was deemed abandoned under s. 13.10(b) of O. Reg 48/01, and dismissed the motion.

The applicant filed a case regarding the adequacy and contents of a Periodic Information Certificate (PIC) provided by the respondent condominium corporation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that while it has jurisdiction over records-related disputes under section 55 of the Condominium Act, it lacks jurisdiction to decide disputes about the accuracy and content of PICs under section 26.3.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction and cautioned the applicant against improper use of the Tribunal.

The applicant filed a noise complaint with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The Tribunal requested clarification on the person or activity causing the noise, as required by section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, but the applicant was unable to provide this information.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute and dismissed the application.

The applicant submitted a records request to the respondent condominium corporation for maintenance logbooks.

The corporation confirmed the logbooks did not exist, a fact the applicant already knew from a prior settlement.

The applicant brought the case to the Tribunal to prove the condominium manager was failing to meet contractual requirements.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was brought for an improper purpose and constituted an abuse of process, as the Tribunal's jurisdiction relates to records disputes, not evaluating management performance.

The applicant filed a records application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal and subsequently brought a motion to add a second records request to the ongoing case.

The respondent did not reply to the request for submissions.

The Tribunal granted the motion, noting that the case was still in the negotiation stage and that adding the request would be the most expeditious method of determining the issues, avoiding the burden of a second case.

The applicant was ordered to upload the related forms to the case documents.

The applicant condominium owner brought an application challenging a chargeback for compliance costs and restrictions on her access to common areas.

The respondent corporation had issued the chargeback for costs incurred enforcing section 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting it lacks jurisdiction over section 117(1) disputes, which involve conduct posing a risk to health, safety, or property.

Despite the applicant's argument that her claim concerned governance failures rather than section 117(1), the Tribunal concluded it did not have authority to hear the matter and dismissed the application.