Jessica Hoffman

The applicant sought the production of board meeting minutes from the respondent condominium corporation.

During the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution process, the parties reached a settlement at the mediation stage.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the corporation to produce properly ratified minutes recording decisions about a cleaning contract and parking garage repairs within 14 days.

The parties also agreed to waive confidentiality of documents shared during negotiation and mediation.

The applicant requested 11 condominium records from the respondent corporation.

During the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution mediation stage, the parties agreed to settle the records dispute.

The Tribunal issued a consent order formalizing the settlement, which required the corporation to produce certain outstanding records, including contracts for recently hired building staff and specific financial records, within specified timeframes.

The applicant, a unit owner and director of the respondent condominium corporation, requested various corporate records.

The respondent refused, arguing the applicant requested them in his capacity as a director and for an improper purpose related to board infighting.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was entitled to certain core records, the majority of the requests were made for an improper purpose to challenge board governance and discredit fellow board members.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the core records but declined to impose a penalty on the respondent.

However, because the respondent failed to formally respond to the initial request as required by the regulations, it was ordered to reimburse the applicant's Tribunal fees.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal, which proceeded to mediation.

The applicant failed to move the case to the tribunal decision stage within the required 15-day period.

As a result, the tribunal ordered the case closed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a condominium resident, alleged that the respondent, a former board president, breached the condominium's anti-harassment rule through three incidents, including an altercation at a meet-and-greet, calling the police about a medical blister pack, and swearing in an elevator.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the matter as the alleged conduct could constitute a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that the conduct occurred as alleged or amounted to a nuisance at law.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied.

The applicant condominium corporation alleged that the respondent unit owner breached its harassment rule by making disparaging LinkedIn posts about residents, board members, management, and legal counsel.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over posts concerning legal counsel, as they are not individuals in a unit or common elements.

Regarding posts about residents and management, the Tribunal found the conduct, while inappropriate and annoying, did not meet the legal threshold of a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption.

The application was dismissed with no costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed a records request for board meeting minutes, photos, and videos related to a water leak and subsequent chargeback.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent corporation did not refuse to provide records without reasonable excuse, as it was unaware of one video's existence and faced technical issues delivering another.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to deliver the remaining video and provide corrected copies of improperly redacted board minutes.

No penalties or costs were awarded.

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 condominium corporation sought an order directing the respondent unit owner to remove a dog from his unit, as the governing documents prohibit pets.

The respondent claimed the dog was an emotional support animal required for a disability.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had a disability and was entitled to keep his dog as an accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal found the respondent breached the rules by temporarily bringing a second dog onto the property.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with certain conditions regarding his dog and awarded the applicant $3,000 in costs due to the respondent's conduct causing delays in the proceeding.

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 Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Merge Cases after the respondent filed a new application that appeared to be a counterclaim to the applicant's existing case regarding the enforcement of pet rules and human rights accommodations.

The applicant opposed the merger, arguing the new application should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the issues were intertwined, the parties were the same, and merging the cases would be more efficient and would not cause significant delay or prejudice.

The Tribunal ordered the cases merged pursuant to section 1.37(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding smoke infiltration in his unit.

After mediation reached an impasse, the applicant was permitted to move the matter to Stage 3 but failed to take the necessary steps or pay the required fee within the allotted time.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation sought costs after the respondent tenant removed a non-compliant dog from the unit during the proceedings.

The tenant had kept a large dog contrary to the condominium's declaration and ignored multiple requests to remove it.

The unit owners did not participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' delayed compliance and non-participation warranted a costs award, but not on a full indemnity basis.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to remove the respondents' dog, which exceeded the 25-pound weight limit set out in the corporation's rules.

The respondents requested an accommodation under the Human Rights Code, arguing the dog was an emotional support animal required for a mental health disability.

The Tribunal found that the respondent provided sufficient medical evidence from a registered psychotherapist to establish a disability and the specific therapeutic need for this dog.

The Tribunal ordered that the dog be permitted to remain as an accommodation.

However, because the respondents failed to properly engage in the accommodation process prior to the litigation, they were ordered to pay the applicant's pre-litigation enforcement costs and Tribunal filing fees.

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

The respondent failed to respond within the required 30 days and did not provide the requested records, citing administrative error and confusion over the request.

The Tribunal found that the respondent refused to provide the records without a reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce certain outstanding records, some subject to reasonable fees, and ordered the respondent to pay a $450 penalty and $200 in costs.

The respondent in a condominium dispute brought a motion for a further adjournment, submitting three doctor's notes.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the first note provided no new information and the request was an abuse of process as the issue had already been decided.

The Tribunal noted that the second note regarding accessible parking was evidence for the substantive hearing, and the third note regarding written communication was an accommodation request that the Tribunal already meets.

The Tribunal ordered the case to resume and directed that the respondent's medical submissions remain confidential.

The respondent in a condominium parking dispute brought a motion requesting an indefinite adjournment of the proceedings due to medical reasons.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal denied the request, finding that an indefinite adjournment would cause significant delay and prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal noted that its written process and the ability to appoint a representative could accommodate the respondent's disability, and ordered the case to resume.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement resolving a prior records dispute.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent breached the agreement by failing to provide revised periodic information certificates and answers to questions by the agreed deadline, though these breaches were inconsequential as they were remedied prior to the application.

However, the respondent remained in breach of the term requiring payment of $200 for tribunal fees.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the $200 and declined to award costs to either party.

The respondent in a condominium parking dispute brought a motion seeking a confidentiality order, dismissal of the case, or an adjournment.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal granted the confidentiality order on consent, finding the personal and medical information met the required standard.

The tribunal declined to dismiss the case, finding it was not a minor issue and had a reasonable prospect of success.

A partial adjournment was granted to allow the respondent time to prepare and participate in the process.