Ian Darling

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

In responding to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant relied on artificial intelligence, which generated fake case citations and misrepresented the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that disputes over chargebacks related to repairs and maintenance fall outside its statutory jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent corporation not to add any legal costs related to the application to the applicant's unit, as the respondent had filed submissions despite being instructed not to do so.

The applicant filed a records case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal disputing a $42.00 convenience fee charged by the respondent condominium corporation for a Status Certificate.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that its jurisdiction is limited to records-related disputes under section 55 of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal found that Status Certificates and their associated fees are governed by section 76 of the Act, which falls outside its jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a chargeback related to a door replacement.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application because it does not have jurisdiction over disputes concerning repairs and maintenance.

The applicant failed to address the substantive jurisdictional concerns in their reply submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant unit owner brought a case regarding chargebacks stemming from a compliance letter issued after their tenant moved into the unit.

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

The Tribunal found that the chargebacks related to safety issues under s. 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and rules regarding elevator use and tenant notification, which are outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The case was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to reopen a case that was automatically closed in the negotiation stage after 30 days of inactivity.

The applicant claimed the inactivity was due to losing access to the case following an email address change.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the applicant had used the email address during the relevant time.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding the applicant had a genuine desire to engage and that reopening the case would be more efficient than requiring a new application.

The applicant was ordered to update their account within 14 days as a condition of reopening.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application challenging a $4,621.46 chargeback for a water leak repair, framing it under the Tribunal's nuisance jurisdiction.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the dispute related to repair and maintenance, not nuisance.

The applicant's response failed to establish that the dispute fell within the scope of issues the Tribunal can decide under Ontario Regulation 179/17.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application disputing a chargeback levied by the respondent condominium corporation for repairs to the common elements related to a basement flood.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under Ontario Regulation 179/17 to deal with chargebacks unrelated to pets, vehicles, parking, storage, or specific nuisances.

The application was dismissed without a hearing.

The applicant brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a chargeback following a plumbing leak in their unit.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it lacks jurisdiction over chargebacks related to plumbing leaks under Ontario Regulation 179/17.

The applicant's response, which appeared to be generated by AI, failed to identify any aspects of the dispute within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal disputing a charge of $652.26 for the disconnection of an electrical outlet in their parking space, which they had used to charge an electric vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the dispute related to the costs to repair or maintain common elements, rather than provisions governing parking or vehicles.

As the issue fell outside the Tribunal's prescribed jurisdiction under O. Reg. 179/17, the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a unit owner, filed an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation followed improper practices for obtaining insurance and scheduling board meetings.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting these issues relate to procurement and governance, which fall outside its jurisdiction under O. Reg. 179/17.

The applicant's response did not address the jurisdictional defect.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant unit owner filed an application alleging harassment by the condominium board following a request for records.

The applicant relied on the corporation's anti-harassment policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the anti-harassment policy was not contained within the corporation's declaration, by-laws, or rules, and therefore did not fall within the Tribunal's authority to decide disputes regarding provisions in governing documents that restrict or prohibit nuisance, annoyance, or disruption.

The respondent brought a motion to reopen a case under Rule 47 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice after failing to participate in the original hearing.

The respondent claimed she was injured and unable to participate, and that the dog in question had been removed from the unit.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, noting that the respondent failed to explain why she waited until July 2025 to request a reopening of a case decided in October 2024.

The Tribunal concluded it would be unfair to reopen the case after such a significant delay.

The applicant unit owner filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging harassment by the condominium board after refusing to remove a video doorbell and a washer and dryer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the dispute centered on alterations to common elements and repairs, which fall outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no legal authority to decide the dispute.

The self-represented applicant filed an application against the condominium corporation alleging harassment and physical assault by the condominium manager regarding the storage of bicycles.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the core issues related to the manager's conduct and alleged assault fall outside its jurisdiction and should be directed to the Condominium Management Regulatory Authority or addressed under section 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant also failed to correct errors in the application by identifying specific governing documents related to the dispute.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing it was filed for an improper purpose to harass the corporation and its management.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was using the records jurisdiction to attempt to resolve underlying interpersonal disputes over which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for improper purpose and awarded the respondent $425 in costs on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant filed an application disputing a chargeback issued by the respondent condominium corporation for repairs related to water damage allegedly originating from the applicant's unit.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that it does not have jurisdiction over repairs and maintenance under sections 89 and 90 of the Condominium Act, 1998, and can only address chargeback disputes if the underlying issue falls within its jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant condominium owner applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal to dispute a $2,688.05 chargeback for legal fees incurred by the condominium corporation in defending a human rights complaint filed by the owner's former tenant.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it only has jurisdiction over indemnification disputes that relate to nuisance, annoyance, or disruption, which did not apply to the human rights complaint chargeback.

The applicant filed two concurrent applications regarding two enforcement letters and associated chargebacks.

The first application was resolved by a Consent Order.

The respondent moved to dismiss the second application, arguing the Consent Order resolved all costs related to the enforcement actions.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that allowing the second case to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's case, arguing that the applicant failed to follow the corporation's established procedures and proper protocol when requesting records.

The applicant contended that the request was provided to a board member using the correct form.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion as premature, finding it unclear whether the form was provided incorrectly and noting that determining the motion on its merits would require more formal testimony and evidence.

The case was ordered to proceed to the Negotiation stage.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged that the respondent condominium corporation failed to adequately redact his name and information about prior Tribunal cases from board meeting minutes shared with owners, violating s. 55(4)(c) of the Condominium Act.

He also challenged the legality and accuracy of an updated Periodic Information Certificate (PIC) issued by the corporation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the disclosure of legal disputes in minutes did not violate the Act and that issues regarding the timing of PICs fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the applicant for pursuing the application for an improper purpose, noting he had been previously warned about misusing Tribunal resources.