Ian Darling

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation unreasonably refused to accept common expense fees by debit card and improperly charged back the cost of a fan coil clean-up.

The tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that its jurisdiction is limited to disputes involving nuisances, annoyances, or disruptions under the condominium's governing documents.

The tribunal concluded that the issues raised related to the payment of common expenses and maintenance chargebacks, which fall outside its jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed, with leave granted to file a separate application regarding a related records dispute.

The applicant condominium owner requested a copy of the Zoom video recording of an owner-requisitioned meeting.

The respondent condominium corporation refused, arguing the recording was not a record under the Condominium Act and was only made to assist in drafting minutes.

The Tribunal found that the video recording was a record of the corporation because it was created and maintained for a purpose related to managing the corporation.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's request was not solely related to his interests as an owner, as he sought the recording to rewrite the meeting minutes to his own expectations rather than waiting for the draft minutes to be reviewed and voted upon by owners.

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation refused to accept deliveries of his medication, which he argued was a dispute about storage provisions in the governing documents and a failure to accommodate his medical needs.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the dispute did not relate to any provisions of the governing documents regarding storage or nuisances, and therefore fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that water condensation dripping from upper units' air conditioners constituted a nuisance and violated the condominium's governing documents.

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

The Tribunal found that the specific provisions cited by the applicant did not prohibit, restrict, or govern the alleged nuisance.

As the dispute did not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction over nuisance disputes, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking reimbursement for moving expenses incurred due to a power outage at the respondent condominium corporation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the dispute did not relate to the condominium's governing documents or an unreasonable nuisance as defined by the regulations.

The applicant failed to provide submissions establishing jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking to enforce a settlement agreement.

The agreement required the respondent condominium corporation to send a letter to owners using specific wording regarding the status of the corporation's rules.

The respondent sent a letter but failed to use the agreed-upon wording.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the agreement, but concluded the breach was minor and unintentional.

The Tribunal declined to order the extensive remedies sought by the applicant, instead ordering that the decision be posted for all owners to read.

The applicant's request for reimbursement of Tribunal fees was denied because the issue could have been resolved through discussion prior to filing.

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a violent altercation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant appeared to be an occupant rather than an owner, and therefore lacked standing under s. 1.36 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Furthermore, the dispute related to conditions or activities likely to cause injury or damage under s. 117(1) of the Act, which is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction pursuant to O. Reg. 179/17.

The application was dismissed as being filed for an improper purpose.

The applicant filed two cases with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding unreasonable noise and vibration, which were similar to an ongoing case.

The Tribunal proposed adjourning the new cases pending the outcome of the ongoing case.

The applicant requested an adjournment for medical reasons.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment until August 15, 2022, based on the medical documentation provided, and deferred the decision on whether to merge or further delay the cases.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal disputing a chargeback issued by the respondent condominium corporation for legal expenses.

The chargeback arose after the applicant's representative allegedly made public statements about the condominium's management.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the dispute related to financial management and legal expenses, which fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Ontario Regulation 179/17.

The applicants submitted two applications to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records dispute and a noise nuisance.

The Tribunal proposed to join the applications under section 1.37(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Applying the balance of convenience factors, the Tribunal found the issues were intertwined and joining them would save costs and time.

The Tribunal ordered the cases merged.

The applicant submitted a dispute to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding alleged errors in the condominium declaration's assignment of common expense fees and sought the removal of associated NSF and lien fees.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that under section 109 of the Condominium Act, 1998, applications to amend a declaration must be made to the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over both the declaration issues and the associated fee disputes, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a dispute regarding the indemnification provisions of the condominium corporation's governing documents, naming an individual director as the respondent.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal proposed to dismiss the application as being outside its jurisdiction, noting a similar previous application by the applicant had been dismissed for the same reason.

Finding that the dispute related to a legal dispute outside its statutory mandate, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The respondent in a condominium noise dispute brought a motion to dismiss the application without a hearing under section 1.41(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, arguing it was not initiated in good faith and contained false information.

The dispute centered on whether the sound of a piano being played by the respondent interfered with the applicant neighbour.

The condominium corporation, named as an intervenor, did not respond to the motion.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the application could not be dismissed as a minor issue, as there was a genuine dispute between two neighbours that fell within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant, an occupant of a condominium unit, filed an application regarding the corporation's pet rules.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant was not a unit owner.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that under section 1.36 of the Condominium Act, 1998, only owners and condominium corporations have standing to apply to the Tribunal for dispute resolution.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation created a nuisance by intimidating, stalking, and invading his privacy, and that the respondent's representatives made false statements in a prior Superior Court proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the allegations of harassment, relitigation of Superior Court matters, and complaints about legal counsel conduct fall outside its jurisdiction under Ontario Regulation 179/17.

Finding that the applicant's response did not address the jurisdictional defects, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant, a condominium owner, requested various records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to provide several records, including a waste collection contract, complete owner addresses, and meeting minutes.

The tribunal found that the respondent's failure to hold required meetings did not excuse the lack of minutes, and that the property manager's refusal to provide the waste contract due to a conflict of interest was not a reasonable excuse.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $2,500 penalty and $200 in costs.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

During Stage 3 of the proceedings, the applicant missed multiple deadlines to provide an opening statement and failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the case as abandoned.

The respondents' request for $5,000 in costs was denied, as the Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant acted improperly or caused additional delay or expense.

The applicant filed a nuisance application regarding the conduct of a tenant.

The respondent unit owner informed the Tribunal that the tenant in question was a former occupant, not a current one.

The Tribunal determined that section 1.36(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the Tribunal's Rules of Practice only permit applications against current owners and occupants.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the unidentified former tenant removed as an intervenor from the case.

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

During mediation, the respondent provided all the records listed in the original request, as well as some additional records requested during the mediation process.

The applicant sought to move the case to a Stage 3 hearing to obtain further additional records.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and ultimately dismissed the case, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the original request was fully satisfied and the applicant had not followed the prescribed process for the newly requested records.

The applicant and respondent agreed to settle their dispute regarding condominium records during Stage 2 mediation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order under section 1.47 of the Condominium Act, 1998, requiring the applicant to pay $126.00 to the respondent, after which the respondent must provide the requested housekeeping and cleaning service invoice records.