Keegan Ferreira

The applicant, a unit owner, sought access to various condominium records, alleging that the board meeting minutes provided were inadequate and that the respondent corporation refused to provide other records without a reasonable excuse.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the minutes contained sufficient detail to meet the statutory requirement for adequate records and that the corporation had not withheld existing records.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay $2,000 in costs due to unreasonable conduct, including seeking to adjudicate the existence of a record they knew did not exist.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against the respondent unit owner for causing noise nuisances and harassing other residents, contrary to s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation's rules.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent engaged in persistent unreasonable noise and harassment, including yelling profanities and threats in the common elements, even after signing a peace bond.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the Act and rules, and awarded the applicant $1,636.24 in damages and $10,150 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal after the respondent corporation failed to respond to his request for board meeting minutes regarding a flood in his unit.

The respondent provided redacted minutes during the hearing but the applicant challenged the redactions related to contemplated litigation.

The Tribunal found the respondent refused the records request without a reasonable excuse and ordered a $500 penalty.

However, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's right to redact information related to actual or contemplated litigation, finding that a litigious dispute existed prior to the records request.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a persistent water leak from their kitchen ceiling and alleged harassment by the condominium corporation for failing to address the issue.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it lacks jurisdiction over disputes concerning repairs or maintenance under Ontario Regulation 179/17.

Finding that the application was fundamentally about the corporation's performance of its repair and maintenance obligations, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding elevator repair and maintenance issues.

The Tribunal informed the applicant that it lacked jurisdiction over such disputes under Ontario Regulation 179/17.

After the applicant resubmitted the application without addressing the jurisdictional defect and failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 19.1 of its Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records dispute.

Upon receiving the Notice of Case, the applicant emailed it to the respondent, the Tribunal, and 83 other individuals.

One of the uninvolved recipients used the unique code in the Notice to join the case as the respondent, preventing the actual respondent from joining.

The Tribunal dismissed the case under Rule 4 of the CAT's Rules of Practice due to the applicant's improper sharing of the Notice, with leave to re-file.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal naming a property management company and an individual as respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it lacks jurisdiction to hear applications against condominium managers or management service providers under section 1.36 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Despite being granted an extension, the applicant made no submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice as it had no legal power to hear or decide the issues.

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.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding noise issues allegedly caused by damage or lack of repair to the common elements.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the case, arguing res judicata based on a previous consent order, lack of jurisdiction over repair issues, and unfairness regarding costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the previous consent order did not bar claims for subsequent noise issues, and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over noise nuisance claims under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, even if the applicant requests a repair as a remedy.

The case was allowed to proceed.

The applicant condominium corporation and a unit owner brought an application against a tenant and his landlord for repeated noise nuisances.

The tenant frequently hosted late-night gatherings with shouting, loud music, and slamming doors, severely impacting neighbours' quiet enjoyment.

The landlord failed to take any steps to ensure his tenant's compliance despite numerous warnings.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found both respondents in breach of the Condominium Act and the corporation's governing documents, issued compliance orders, and ordered them to jointly and severally pay $15,200 in costs.

The applicants, unit owners in the respondent condominium corporation, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding an alleged odour nuisance following a flood.

The Tribunal issued a notice of intent to dismiss, noting the core issue was flood damage and remediation, not a nuisance within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found the dispute was fundamentally about the corporation's obligation to repair and notify owners, and that it engaged section 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, which falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought a case before the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records and provided inadequate or excessively redacted records.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide the correct audited financial statements, maintained an inadequate record of notices of leased units and record of owners and mortgagees, and excessively redacted board meeting minutes without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to review and update the records, provide properly redacted copies, and pay a $750 penalty along with $200 in costs.

The applicant filed an application regarding the adequacy of condominium board meeting minutes.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the case under Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, arguing the issues were minor and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the applicant's concerns regarding redactions, missing signatures, and minor procedural errors did not render the records inadequate.

The motion to dismiss was granted.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought a motion during mediation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding his request for records.

The respondent condominium corporation had served a Notice of Mediation alleging the applicant's repeated records requests were vexatious and an abuse of process, seeking to prevent further requests.

The applicant sought to add these issues to the Tribunal proceeding and argued the respondent's actions were retaliatory.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over whether an owner is entitled to make records requests and added the respondent's issues to the dispute.

The Tribunal declined to find the applicant's requests vexatious at this stage and found insufficient evidence that the respondent acted in a retaliatory or oppressive manner.

The applicant condominium owner sought records 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 corporation to provide redacted proxy forms from a recent meeting and to create a table outlining maintenance and repair responsibilities for distribution to all owners.

The corporation also agreed to comply with future records requests in accordance with the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant filed a case regarding odour, smoke, and vapour issues, which was closed due to inactivity for more than 30 days.

The applicant brought a motion to reopen the case, explaining that a family medical emergency prevented their participation.

The respondent opposed the motion, citing the applicant's lack of commitment to resolving the underlying issues.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding the applicant's explanation reasonable and noting that reopening the case would not prejudice the respondent and would save the parties from having to start a new case.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested copies of the condominium corporation's legal invoices for the preceding twelve months.

The corporation refused, citing solicitor-client privilege.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while legal invoices are presumptively privileged, the presumption can be rebutted if disclosure of the fee amounts would not reveal privileged communications.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to provide the invoices, redacted to remove descriptions of services, hours billed, hourly rates, specific counsel names, and dates, leaving only the total amounts.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty against the corporation but awarded the applicant $200 in costs for Tribunal fees.

The applicant, a unit owner and board member, sought an order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to invoke a dispute resolution process under a shared facilities agreement to obtain a document from another condominium corporation regarding the procurement of an insurance policy.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the requested document likely did not exist and was not a record the respondent was obliged to maintain under the Condominium Act, 1998.

Consequently, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to order the requested relief and declined to award a penalty or costs.

The applicant, a condominium owner who does not own a vehicle, sought to use visitor parking passes for a borrowed family vehicle.

The condominium corporation denied the request, citing rules restricting visitor parking to actual guests and a history of parking shortages.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation's interpretation of its rules was reasonable and protected by the business judgment rule.

The tribunal concluded the rules were reasonable, consistently applied, and dismissed the application without costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for various non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent agreed to provide the records but charged fees based on an hourly rate of $65, which the applicant disputed as unreasonable.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the $65 hourly rate unjustified and reduced it to $32 per hour.

Because the respondent's initially requested fees were unreasonably high and acted as a barrier, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide most of the requested records at no cost and to reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.