Justin McLarty

The applicant unit owner and the respondent condominium corporation agreed to settle a dispute regarding the enforcement of a no-smoking rule against another unit owner.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the corporation to provide a summary of past enforcement steps and to file a Tribunal application against the non-compliant unit owner.

The applicant withdrew her claims against the non-compliant unit owner without prejudice.

The applicant unit owner applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding noise complaints from the unit above.

The agreement required the corporation to hire a sound engineer and implement reasonable recommendations for common element noise issues.

The Tribunal found that the corporation complied with the agreement, as the engineer's report found the floor assembly sufficient and only recommended the upstairs neighbour install area rugs, which the corporation had no authority to enforce.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against a unit owner and her three tenants regarding repeated complaints of loud noise, including music and shouting, during late night and early morning hours.

The tenants and owner failed to abate the noise despite warnings from security and management.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the tenants breached section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation's rules by creating unreasonable noise.

The Tribunal ordered the tenants to cease making unreasonable noise and ordered the unit owner to ensure her tenants comply with the rules.

The owner was also ordered to pay $2,450 in costs to the condominium corporation.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against the respondent unit owner for violating rules regarding pets, balcony use, and noise.

The respondent, who had vacated the unit prior to the hearing, did not participate.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the rules by failing to clean up dog excrement and cigarette butts on his balcony, which interfered with the neighbour below, and by creating unreasonable noise during domestic disputes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the rules if he returns to the unit and awarded $150 in Tribunal fees to the applicant, but denied the applicant's claim for over $7,000 in legal costs because pursuing the hearing after the respondent vacated was unreasonable.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against the respondent unit owners regarding smoke odours allegedly causing a nuisance.

At the Stage 3 hearing, the respondents clarified that they are co-owners and that a tenant currently resides in the unit.

Because the tenant was not named as a party, the Tribunal dismissed the application and directed the applicant to refile the application naming the tenant, with filing fees waived.

The applicant brought a motion to have his name redacted from a previously published Condominium Authority Tribunal decision.

He argued that publication could lead to hostile behaviour from a neighbour, damage his professional reputation, and negatively affect the value of his unit.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to establish that his privacy interests outweighed the strong public interest in the open court principle.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application against the condominium corporation alleging it failed to address unreasonable noise emanating from the unit above his.

The applicant also disputed chargebacks levied against him for compliance letters regarding noise allegedly emanating from his own unit.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation failed to adequately investigate the applicant's complaints and ordered it to hold a meeting to address the issue.

The Tribunal also found that while some complaints against the applicant were substantiated, the corporation did not properly investigate all of them before issuing compliance letters.

The corporation was ordered to reimburse half the cost of the compliance letters and half the applicant's filing fee.

The applicant sought a list of all owners from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 Mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide the requested owner list and reimburse the applicant $300 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application alleging the respondent tenant failed to comply with a prior settlement agreement.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached multiple terms of the agreement, including smoking on common elements, parking violations, and causing damage to the parking gate.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the settlement agreement and to pay compensation and legal costs incurred by the applicant.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, challenged the respondent condominium corporation's implementation of new parking policies, which included charging rental fees for non-exclusive use spaces and requiring parking tags under threat of municipal ticketing.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation lacked the authority to lease the spaces without a special by-law and could not enforce the parking tag system without properly amending its rules in accordance with the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to cease both practices until its governing documents permit them and to reimburse the applicant for the parking rental fees she paid, along with her Tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a case against a unit owner and their tenants for breaching condominium rules by parking in visitor parking, parking in other residents' spaces, and speeding on the common elements.

The owner argued they could not control their tenants and cited a language barrier.

The Tribunal found that the rules were violated and that the owner is responsible for their tenants' compliance under the condominium's declaration.

The Tribunal ordered the tenants to cease the violations and ordered the owner to ensure compliance and pay $686.75 in costs and tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the occupant of a unit to comply with a rule prohibiting the storage of garbage on common elements, and requiring the non-resident owners to take reasonable steps to obtain compliance.

The respondents did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the occupant willfully breached the rule and that the owners failed to take any steps to ensure compliance.

The Tribunal ordered immediate compliance by the occupant, directed the owners to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance, and awarded the corporation its legal and Tribunal costs on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested core and non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation, including board minutes and HVAC inspection reports.

The applicant disputed the adequacy of the records provided and the $360 labour fee charged for redacting and producing the non-core records.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the records provided were adequate and that the corporation did not withhold any existing records.

However, the Tribunal found the eight-hour labour estimate for producing the records was unreasonable and reduced the allowable fee to five hours of labour at $45 per hour.

No penalty or costs were awarded.

The applicant condominium owner brought an application alleging that the condominium corporation and a neighbour engaged in a campaign of harassment and nuisance against her daughter.

The condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the allegations pertained to harassment and conduct outside the scope of 'nuisance, annoyance or disruption' as defined in the Condominium Act, 1998 and its regulations.

As the Tribunal's jurisdiction is strictly limited by statute, the application was dismissed.

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

The applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fee within the allotted 15-day period.

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

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application regarding noise complaints about barking dogs in the respondents' unit.

The parties agreed to settle the matter by way of a consent order.

The tribunal issued the consent order requiring the tenant to vacate the unit or remove the dogs by a specified date, with the applicant absorbing all associated costs.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a default proceeding against the respondent owner for parking three motorcycles in a single parking spot, in violation of the corporation's declaration.

Despite multiple notices and legal letters, the respondent failed to comply and did not participate in the Tribunal hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent in breach of the declaration and ordered him to cease parking more than one motor vehicle in any of his parking spots.

The respondent was also ordered to pay $2,150 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant, a unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking enforcement of the condominium corporation's pet rules regarding a boulevard maintained by the corporation.

The respondent corporation argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the boulevard was owned by the City of Toronto, not the corporation.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the boulevard did not form part of the condominium property or assets, and therefore the corporation's rules could not apply to it under section 58 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement by failing to post board meeting minutes to its website within seven days of approval.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the agreement with respect to one set of minutes, which were posted two months late.

However, the Tribunal held it lacked statutory authority to impose fines on the corporation or its board members for the breach.

As the minutes had since been posted, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant's $125 filing fee.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested unredacted copies of proxy forms and an excel summary sheet from the corporation's annual general meeting.

The condominium corporation refused to provide unredacted proxies, citing statutory privacy requirements, and stated the excel sheet was not part of the proxy records requested.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to unredacted proxies as they contained personal information protected under the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal also found the excel sheet was not a proxy instrument and required a separate request.

The corporation's estimated fee of $232.20 for redacting and copying the records was deemed reasonable.

Claims for damages and costs were dismissed.