Kathryn Kertesz

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's case, arguing that the applicant had filed an identical claim regarding parking rules in Small Claims Court, constituting an abuse of process.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over parking disputes under the Condominium Act and its regulations.

Because the Small Claims Court proceeding was paused pending this decision, there was no risk of the respondent having to defend two claims simultaneously, and dismissing the application would prejudice the self-represented applicant.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 (Mediation) of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution process.

The Tribunal issued a consent order dismissing the application and ordering the respondent condominium corporation to reimburse the applicant $2,920.30 for the costs of the proceeding.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to combine two separate applications filed by the applicant: one regarding a nuisance dispute and another regarding a records dispute.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no practical benefit to combining the matters as they involved different facts and issues with no apparent connection.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The matter proceeded to mediation, after which the applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3.

The applicant failed to pay the required fee within 15 days.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the case closed in Stage 2 pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation and the respondent unit owners reached a settlement in Stage 2 Mediation regarding a noise and vibration dispute involving the owners' tenant.

The parties agreed that the tenant created unreasonable noise in violation of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation's rules, and that the unit owners are responsible for the nuisance.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondents to comply with the governing documents and ordering the unit owners to reimburse the corporation $8,552.60 for legal costs.

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

The applicant requested to withdraw the case on the basis that the respondent tenant had given notice to terminate their tenancy.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed, with a provision that it could be reopened if the respondent did not vacate the premises by the specified date.

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

The applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to the tribunal decision stage but failed to pay the required fee within 15 days.

Consequently, the tribunal ordered the case closed in the mediation stage pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal, which 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 permitted 15-day period.

As a result, the Tribunal ordered the case closed in Stage 2 pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant and respondent reached a settlement during Stage 2 Mediation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The parties agreed to a consent order resolving the dispute.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant's $75 filing fee within 30 days and closed the file.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 43 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice to correct or clarify a previous decision regarding a records request.

The applicant sought changes to the Tribunal's findings regarding a playground committee and the section applied to his legal costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 43 only permits minor typographical or calculation corrections, not substantive changes to findings.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested board meeting minutes relating to a playground.

The respondent condominium corporation provided the records after a five-month delay and heavily redacted them without providing the required written statements explaining the redactions.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with the Condominium Act and its regulations.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the required explanatory statements, pay a penalty of $650 for the delay without reasonable excuse, and pay $200 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium owner, requested various records from the respondent condominium corporation under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent refused to provide certain contracts, the first quarter 2018 Periodic Information Certificate (PIC), and the auditor's report, arguing the applicant's past disruptive conduct demonstrated the request was not solely related to his interests as an owner.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal rejected this argument, finding no evidence of bad faith or misuse of records.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested contracts and auditor's report, awarded the applicant $700 in costs due to the respondent's unreasonable delay, and imposed a $500 penalty on the respondent for failing to maintain and provide the PIC without a reasonable excuse.

The applicant sought a list of owners and addresses suitable for service from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties resolved the matter during Stage 2 Mediation, with the respondent providing the requested list.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order closing the file.