Jacob Oziel

The applicant unit owner sought an order from the Condominium Authority Tribunal directing the respondent condominium corporation to provide board meeting minutes and a specific by-law, and requested a penalty for the corporation's refusal to provide them.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was not entitled to draft minutes, the corporation's nearly year-long delay in approving minutes constituted a refusal without a reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty, finding the corporation did not willfully disregard its obligations, but ordered the corporation to provide the approved minutes within a set timeframe and awarded the applicant $200 in costs.

The applicant unit owner brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation, alleging it unreasonably enforced pet rules and attempted to enforce non-existent rules regarding her dog.

The respondent had sent two compliance letters after receiving complaints about the dog urinating on common elements, barking, and wandering onto other owners' exclusive use areas.

The Tribunal found that the respondent acted reasonably in investigating the complaints and sending the letters, and did not attempt to enforce non-existent rules.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, challenged the respondent condominium corporation's visitor parking policy and its enforcement actions against their vehicle.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the policy, which restricted visitor parking and required registration without being formally enacted as a rule under the Condominium Act, 1998, was an improperly implemented rule.

Consequently, the policy and the corporation's actions to enforce it, including ticketing the applicant's vehicle, were invalid and unenforceable.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to cease enforcing the policy until properly enacted and awarded costs to the applicant.