Ian Darling

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's case regarding a records request for unredacted election proxies and allegations of election manipulation.

The Tribunal granted the motion to dismiss, finding that it lacks jurisdiction over disputes related to condominium meetings and elections.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the request for unredacted proxy forms had no reasonable prospect of success, as such records are prescribed exemptions under the Condominium Act and its regulations.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent owner to comply with parking rules by removing a stored vehicle from her assigned spot and ceasing to park a second vehicle in a visitor parking space.

The respondent argued she required the visitor space as a disability-related accommodation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was improperly storing a vehicle in her assigned spot contrary to the rules.

Furthermore, while the respondent established a mobility-related disability, she failed to demonstrate a specific disability-related need to use the visitor parking space instead of her assigned spot.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the parking rules and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding the condominium corporation's finances, board governance, and reserve fund.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the issues raised fell outside its statutory jurisdiction under Ontario Regulation 179/17.

The applicant did not respond to the Notice or amend the application to raise jurisdictional issues.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding noise and odour from live and dead mice in their unit, alleging the condominium corporation failed to take action.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting its jurisdiction over nuisances requires the nuisance to result from a person's activity.

As the dispute related to an infestation and the corporation's governance and management rather than an activity, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought records from the respondent condominium corporation regarding correspondence between the corporation and its lawyer concerning ongoing litigation.

The corporation refused to provide the records, citing litigation privilege.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that subsection 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998 explicitly exempts records relating to actual or contemplated litigation from disclosure.

As the applicant did not respond to the Notice, the Tribunal dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking to enforce a settlement agreement after the respondent failed to pay the agreed sum of $75.00 by the deadline.

The respondent joined the case but made no submissions.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had not complied with the agreement and ordered the respondent to pay the $75.00.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant's $125.00 filing fee, for a total payment of $200.00.

The applicant filed an application regarding light coming from a neighbouring backyard.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the issue had already been adjudicated in a prior decision involving the same parties.

The applicant clarified that the light in question is owned by the condominium corporation and is distinct from the prior case.

The Tribunal accepted this clarification, declined to dismiss the application, and ordered that the case proceed to the next stage.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding outdoor lighting issues that had already been adjudicated in a previous case.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of its Rules of Practice, noting that the appropriate venue to enforce an existing Tribunal order is the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation contravened a settlement agreement regarding the correction of board meeting minutes.

While the respondent included the exact text required by the agreement, it also added contextual commentary explaining that the agreed text was inaccurate based on legal advice and further investigation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent complied with the specific terms of the settlement agreement and the additional text did not constitute a contravention.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging a light nuisance because the condominium corporation turned off power to their commercial unit, preventing them from using their lights.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the absence of power does not constitute a light nuisance within the meaning of the legislation, and therefore the dispute fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a temporary fence installed in the parking garage near their parking spot.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice because the applicant failed to identify any provision in the condominium corporation's governing documents that was being violated.

The Tribunal concluded it had no authority to issue an order on the issue.

The applicant brought a motion to reopen a case that was closed due to 30 days of inactivity during the negotiation stage.

The applicant demonstrated that personal reasons prevented payment of the fee to advance the case, and contacted the Tribunal as soon as possible.

The respondents and intervenor did not oppose the motion.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it fair to reopen the case as the respondents would not be prejudiced.

The applicant brought a motion requesting the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) to order the respondent condominium corporation to stop a mediation and arbitration process commenced under section 132(4) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent brought a countermotion to dismiss the case, arguing the issues fell outside the CAT's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the application as it related to indemnification for costs incurred in enforcing an anti-harassment rule, which falls under provisions governing nuisance activities.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's motion to stop the arbitration, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to make orders regarding external dispute resolution processes.

Both motions were dismissed.

The respondent in a condominium dispute brought a motion requesting an indefinite adjournment of the hearing due to an emergency surgery and ongoing medical issues.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal denied the request, noting that the medical documentation provided did not meet the minimum standards set out in the Tribunal's Practice Direction and that the respondent had demonstrated the ability to maintain multiple other legal proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the case to resume and extended a prior confidentiality order to the motion materials.

The applicant condominium corporation and the respondents agreed to settle their dispute during Stage 2 mediation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the settlement terms, which included rules regarding noise thresholds, visitor restrictions, and communication protocols.

The Tribunal also issued a confidentiality order anonymizing the respondents' identities, applying the Sherman Estate standard to protect their individual dignity.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding excessive noise from an elevator shaft adjacent to their unit.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, to which the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of its Rules of Practice, noting that it lacks jurisdiction over disputes regarding elevator repairs and maintenance.

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that a board member's conduct violated the condominium corporation's anti-harassment policy.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the dispute fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that its jurisdiction under O. Reg. 179/17 is limited to disputes related to provisions of a declaration, by-law, or rule governing nuisances, annoyances, or disruptions.

Because the anti-harassment policy was not a declaration, by-law, or rule, the Tribunal lacked the legal authority to decide the issue.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application regarding compliance with parking and storage rules, as well as an alleged violation of the declaration due to the respondent operating an unauthorized air conditioning business in the garage.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the business operation.

Finding that the governing documents did not specifically restrict the business as a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption under the regulations, the Tribunal dismissed the portion of the application relating to the business operation for lack of jurisdiction, while allowing the parking and storage issues to proceed.

The applicant in a condominium records dispute sought to add an issue regarding the adequacy of the records provided, specifically alleging that certain proxies used in a recent board election were wrongly dated and should have been disqualified.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the dispute was actually about election procedures rather than records.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, finding that the core issue was an election dispute over which it lacks jurisdiction, and denied the motion to add the issue.

The parties had two records cases before the Condominium Authority Tribunal, both in the negotiation stage.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the two cases merged pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules of Practice, as the issues were similar and the requested records overlapped.