Inderpreet Suri

The applicant condominium corporation brought a case against a unit owner and her tenant regarding noise and pet rule violations.

The tenant vacated the unit and did not participate in the proceeding.

The applicant and the unit owner agreed to resolve the dispute by consent.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the owner to comply with the governing documents, pay clean-up and legal costs in monthly installments, and prohibiting the former tenant from returning to the unit.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that cigarette smoke and odour were migrating from a neighbouring unit into his unit, causing a nuisance to his mother who occupied the unit.

He sought orders prohibiting the neighbour from smoking, requiring the condominium corporation to replace the ventilation system, and awarding damages.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that smoke or odour was migrating into the applicant's unit.

The Tribunal also found that the condominium corporation had fulfilled its statutory duties by reasonably investigating the complaints and finding no evidence of smoke.

The applicants sought an order declaring a condominium lien invalid and requiring its discharge, arguing they were not responsible for water damage from an overflowing toilet, that the respondent engaged in oppressive conduct (unreasonable deductible, overcharging), and that the lien was untimely.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicants responsible for the damage due to their act or omission (clogged toilet and broken shut-off valve), that the respondent's conduct was not oppressive, and that the lien was registered within the statutory timeframe.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding noise and vibration caused by heat pumps in a mechanical suite near their unit.

The tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Case, noting that the noise was not caused by an 'activity' under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, but rather fell under the corporation's repair and maintenance obligations.

The tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over repair and maintenance disputes and dismissed the case.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought access to core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 3 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide the requested records, including periodic information certificates, financial statements, auditor's reports, and the reserve fund plan.

The respondent was also ordered to pay a $5,000 penalty and $150 in filing fees, and to credit the applicant's common expenses to ensure she does not bear the cost of the penalty, filing fees, or the corporation's legal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application regarding complaints of significant disruption and unreasonable noise caused by a resident.

The parties agreed to settle the matter via a consent order.

The tribunal ordered the resident to cease making unreasonable noise or causing disturbances on the property, and established a communication protocol for future incidents.

The applicant condominium corporation and a unit owner brought an application against a tenant and his landlord for repeated noise nuisances.

The tenant frequently hosted late-night gatherings with shouting, loud music, and slamming doors, severely impacting neighbours' quiet enjoyment.

The landlord failed to take any steps to ensure his tenant's compliance despite numerous warnings.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found both respondents in breach of the Condominium Act and the corporation's governing documents, issued compliance orders, and ordered them to jointly and severally pay $15,200 in costs.

The applicant unit owner brought a complaint regarding excessive noise and vibration from a commercial gym operating in another unit.

The parties reached a settlement during the Condominium Authority Tribunal's mediation stage.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the gym operator to cease using certain equipment, implement noise mitigation measures, and vacate the unit by September 30, 2023.

The respondents were also ordered to pay $75 in costs.

The plaintiffs, developers of two condominium buildings, sought an extension of time to serve statements of claim against the respective condominium corporations for unpaid promissory notes related to guest suites.

The statements of claim were issued in March 2020 but not served until July 2022, past the extended deadline of March 2021.

The delay was attributed to counsel's inadvertence.

The defendants opposed, arguing abandonment and prejudice due to witness unavailability and changes in unit ownership.

The court, applying the principles from Chiarelli v Wiens, found that the plaintiffs intended to pursue the actions and that the delay was due to inadvertence.

The court rejected the defendants' claims of prejudice, noting their early notice of the claims and that any alleged prejudice was not caused by the delay or was speculative.

The motions for extension of time were granted.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding the procedure for records requests.

The agreement designated a specific employee at the condominium's management company to handle the applicant's requests.

The respondent subsequently changed its records request procedure, and the designated employee later resigned when the management company was acquired.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent technically breached the agreement before the employee's resignation, the breach was de minimis.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the specific term of the settlement agreement became frustrated and impossible to perform due to the employee's departure and the management company's acquisition.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The applicants and the respondent condominium corporation reached a settlement regarding excessive noise emanating from the condominium's fitness room.

The parties requested that their agreement be incorporated into a Consent Order.

The Tribunal issued the Consent Order, which required the respondent to provide an acoustic testing report, change fitness room hours, remove certain equipment, implement noise-dampening modifications, and adopt a noise enforcement policy.

The respondent was also ordered to pay $400 in costs to the applicants.

The applicants, unit owners in the respondent condominium corporation, brought an application for an oppression remedy, alleging that the corporation's representatives engaged in coercive and abusive behaviour regarding noise complaints, repair issues, balcony storage, and the rejection of a board nomination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the conduct of both parties was less than ideal, the respondent's actions did not meet the legal test for oppression and were a valid exercise of balancing communal interests with private rights.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted multiple requests for records including board meeting minutes, an engineering report, and a board resolution.

The respondent condominium corporation refused the engineering report citing contemplated litigation, delayed providing the meeting minutes, and withheld the resolution due to a dispute over the method of payment for a $5 fee.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to withhold the engineering report and charge the $5 fee, but could not dictate the payment method to deny the record.

The Tribunal also found the respondent effectively refused to provide the meeting minutes in a timely manner.

The respondent was ordered to provide the resolution and pay a $750 penalty plus $200 in costs.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to invalidate a condominium lien, the respondent condominium corporation sought full indemnity costs of $23,905.99.

The court found that the conduct of the applicant's counsel was reprehensible, scandalous, and outrageous, including making unsubstantiated allegations of professional misconduct and fraud, failing to respond to communications, and acting abusively.

The court awarded the respondent its full indemnity costs to sanction this conduct and bring finality to the litigation.

During an application to set aside a condominium lien, the applicant's counsel was administratively suspended by the Law Society of Ontario.

The court convened a hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction to rule on the application and whether counsel should pay costs personally.

The court found it had jurisdiction to rule on the application as it was fully argued before the suspension was known.

The court ordered the applicant's counsel to personally pay $800 in costs to the respondent due to his failure to address the suspension promptly and communicate with the court, which caused unnecessary delay and expense.

A request to seal the endorsement was denied.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought an unopposed motion for an order for foreclosure on approximately a dozen parking spots owned by the defendant due to default on common area expenses.

The court noted the defendant was properly served but chose not to appear, inferring the defendant did not view the units as having equity exceeding the lien amount.

The court granted the foreclosure order, leaving the legal question of whether subsection 85(6) of the Condominium Act, 1998 strictly encompasses foreclosure for a future contested case.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion regarding roof leaks and parking lot issues against the defendant condominium corporation and property management.

The defendants brought a cross-motion.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment because she had not received the defendants' responding materials in an accessible format.

The court granted the adjournment and set a timetable for service.

The court also summarily dismissed the plaintiff's motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside a previous order denying the appointment of amicus, finding it to be an abuse of process as the rule does not permit re-arguing a decided matter.

The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1724 brought an application against a unit owner, Evgeni Evdassin, for a compliance order to replace defective Kitec pipes and for various other permanent prohibitory orders, seeking costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court granted the compliance order for pipe replacement, as the unit owner had largely consented to this, but dismissed the broader prohibitory orders, finding the Condominium had over-reached.

On the issue of costs, the court declined to award full indemnity costs, emphasizing that section 134(5) of the Condominium Act provides an enforcement mechanism for actual costs but does not dictate the court's assessment of costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, reducing the amount claimed due to the Condominium's partial success and over-reaching on certain requests.

The Condominium Corporation sought compliance orders against a unit owner for refusing access to replace defective Kitec pipes and for alleged abusive and interfering behaviour.

The court ordered the owner to allow access for pipe replacement and to pay associated costs, finding he had interfered with the work.

However, the court declined to issue broader, indefinite compliance orders regarding future conduct, finding the alleged misconduct was not sufficiently persistent or egregious to warrant such extensive restrictions, and that some evidence was inadmissible hearsay.