Jennifer Webster

The applicant condominium corporation sought costs against the respondent unit owners after the parties settled a dispute regarding the respondents' non-compliance with a no-smoking rule.

The applicant claimed full indemnity for its pre-litigation and tribunal costs.

The tribunal found that the respondents' conduct caused delays and additional expenses, justifying a costs award, but determined that full indemnity was disproportionate.

The respondents were ordered to pay $4,696.50 in costs, and their cross-claim for costs was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal after receiving a cease and desist letter from the respondent condominium corporation demanding $800 in legal costs for circulating an allegedly defamatory email.

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

The Tribunal found that the dispute did not relate to a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption within the meaning of the Condominium Act or the corporation's governing documents, but rather to a general indemnification claim.

The application was dismissed at the mediation stage as being outside the Tribunal's legal authority.

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 applicant, a unit owner and former board member, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records and failed to keep adequate records.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent did not refuse the records without reasonable excuse, it failed to maintain adequate records of notices relating to leases and board meeting minutes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to create a record of board decisions made outside of meetings, required current directors to retake mandatory training, and awarded the applicant $200 in costs.

The applicant brought a case before the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding noise complaints.

During Stage 3 of the online dispute resolution process, the parties agreed to settle the matter.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to retain an engineer to complete an investigation into the noise complaints, with all parties ordered to cooperate and provide access to their units.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application against the condominium corporation and the former owner of the unit above his, complaining of unreasonable noise and vibration.

During the proceedings, it was revealed that the upper unit had been sold to a new owner.

The Tribunal ordered that the new owner be added as an intervenor, as she would be directly affected by any potential remedies.

The Tribunal also adjourned the hearing for six weeks and directed the condominium corporation to conduct an independent third-party investigation into the noise, while requiring the applicant and the new owner to maintain activity and noise logs.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application against the condominium corporation and the owner of the unit above him, alleging unreasonable noise and vibration.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing it was filed outside the two-year limitation period and that the upper unit owner was not properly served with the Notice of Case.

The Tribunal found the application was timely because the noise complaints constituted an ongoing issue.

Although the applicant failed to properly deliver the Notice of Case to the upper unit owner, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed, finding that any prejudice from the late notice was addressed through the mediation-adjudication process.

The applicant condominium owner filed a case alleging the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding a records request.

The respondent acknowledged the breach, citing inadvertence during a change in property management.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the settlement agreement and reimburse the applicant's $125 filing fee.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty, finding it lacked jurisdiction to issue a penalty in a dispute solely about enforcing a settlement agreement.

The applicant condominium owner sought orders against her neighbour and the condominium corporation regarding alleged unreasonable noise transmitted through a shared bedroom wall.

The applicant claimed the noise disrupted her sleep and that the corporation failed to adequately investigate.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence to prove the sounds constituted an unreasonable noise or that the neighbour was the source.

The Tribunal also found the condominium corporation took reasonable steps to investigate the complaints, which were limited by the applicant's refusal to allow security into her unit.

The applicant condominium owner sought to add three additional issues to a dispute regarding a records request.

The proposed issues related to alleged false statements, non-compliance with a prior tribunal order, and breaches of confidentiality during mediation in a previous case.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal declined to add the issues, finding they related to a previously decided case and that enforcement of prior orders must be pursued in the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application claiming that the respondents, who are tenants in the unit above him, were causing unreasonable noise.

The applicant sought an order for the respondents to cease the noise, remedial measures, and damages for emotional distress.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the applicant provided only subjective evidence of the noise, which was contradicted by the respondents' witnesses.

The condominium corporation also failed to provide objective evidence or records of an investigation.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish that the respondents were making unreasonable noise and dismissed the application.

The applicant condominium owner claimed the respondent condominium corporation failed to keep adequate records, specifically alleging that the minutes of a board meeting were inadequate because there was no quorum of qualified directors.

The respondent acknowledged the original minutes were inaccurate but had already amended them to reflect the lack of quorum.

The Tribunal found the amended minutes were adequate and declined to order any penalty or disqualify the directors, noting such remedies were outside its authority or unwarranted.

No costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant condominium owner challenged a $1,449.23 chargeback levied by the respondent condominium corporation for legal costs incurred in issuing a compliance letter regarding alleged noise and harassment.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over the dispute.

The Tribunal held that the corporation acted unreasonably by escalating to a legal letter without first investigating the allegations or issuing a warning.

The corporation was ordered to reimburse the $1,449.23 chargeback and pay $200 for the applicant's filing fees.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a case to the Tribunal regarding a tenant's conduct of sweeping debris and water off her balcony and hanging rugs, which caused a nuisance to other residents.

The landlord failed to participate or take reasonable steps to ensure his tenant's compliance despite repeated notices.

The Tribunal found that the tenant's conduct constituted a nuisance in breach of the governing documents and that the landlord failed to fulfill his statutory obligations.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to cease the conduct, the landlord to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance, and awarded costs against both the landlord and the tenant.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal that proceeded to Stage 2 mediation.

After mediation reached an impasse, the applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to do so or pay the required fee within 15 days.

Pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, the tribunal ordered the case closed and dismissed.

The applicants, owners of two units in an industrial condominium, challenged the condominium corporation's allocation and enforcement of reserved parking spots.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the corporation had the authority to lease common element parking spots, it failed to do so validly because it did not enact a supporting by-law as required by section 21(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal held that the corporation's enforcement of the parking rules was reasonable and did not constitute harassment.

The parking leases were declared unenforceable, and the corporation was ordered to pay $200 in costs to the applicants, though claims for damages were dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached the confidentiality provision of a settlement agreement by disclosing details of a previous Condominium Authority Tribunal case to owners.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent's communication shared confidential information from the mediation stage and misrepresented the Tribunal's process, it did not disclose the specific details or terms of the settlement agreement itself.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was no contravention of the settlement agreement and dismissed the application.

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

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to retain a commercial cleaner for twice-weekly deep cleaning of his unit to prevent unreasonable odours and pests.

The order also affirmed the applicant's right to inspect the unit and, if necessary, perform remediation at the respondent's expense.

During a condominium dispute proceeding, the parties submitted documents containing sensitive personal medical information.

The Tribunal, with the agreement of the parties, issued a confidentiality order under Rule 21.5 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal Rules of Practice to protect these documents and the recording of a cross-examination session from public disclosure.

The applicant unit owner submitted a request for various condominium records.

The respondent condominium corporation agreed to provide the records but claimed fees for the labour required to redact them.

The applicant disputed the estimated time required for redaction and sought a penalty for the respondent's initial refusal to provide certain records.

The Tribunal found the respondent's estimated fee of $557 for redaction to be reasonable and ordered the applicant to pay it.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty, finding the respondent had a reasonable excuse for its initial refusal, and declined to award costs to either party.