Laurie Sanford

The applicant condominium corporation sought to recover over $17,000 in clean-up, enforcement, and legal costs after the respondent tenants permitted their dog to repeatedly soil an exclusive-use balcony.

The unit owner (landlord) argued he should not be liable as he took prompt action to evict the tenants and the corporation had assured him it would not seek costs against him.

The Tribunal found the tenants responsible for the $3,044.60 in clean-up costs and $1,412.51 in enforcement costs, rejecting their argument that a prior settlement with the landlord barred the corporation's claim under the doctrine of res judicata.

The Tribunal also ordered the tenants to pay $200 in filing fees but denied the corporation's claim for legal costs, finding no exceptional reasons to award them.

The applicant unit owner sought an exemption from the condominium corporation's 'no pets' rule to accommodate her son's need for an emotional support animal (ESA).

The applicant acquired a Labrador dog expected to weigh 60-70 pounds.

The condominium corporation agreed to accommodate the ESA but imposed a 25-pound weight restriction.

The Tribunal found that while the corporation's Service Animal Policy and exemption procedures were invalid attempts to bypass statutory rule-making requirements, the 25-pound weight limit was a reasonable condition of accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent and intervenor sought legal costs following the dismissal of the applicant's condominium dispute.

The Tribunal found that while the self-represented applicant's introduction of extraneous issues was merely unreasonable, her persistent refusal to follow directions and her unexcused absence from a scheduled hearing day constituted grossly unreasonable conduct.

The Tribunal awarded partial legal costs and disbursements against the applicant.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to order the respondent to add the intervenor's costs to the applicant's common expenses.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought an order permitting her to use electric vehicle charging stations in the shared visitor parking area, or alternatively, requiring the condominium corporation to install a dedicated charging station at its expense.

She argued that the restriction on visitor parking violated the Condominium Act regulations, the AODA, and her right to accommodation for a physical disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the statutory provisions did not grant her the right to use the visitor parking or compel the installation of a charger.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish discrimination based on her disability, as her request related to her preference for an electric vehicle rather than a disability-related need, and she had already refused a reasonable accommodation offered by the corporation.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal claiming entitlement to two parking spaces based on her interpretation of the condominium's declaration and site plans.

She also alleged that a drainage pipe improperly encroached on her storage locker and leaked.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, accepting the respondent condominium corporation's evidence that the applicant was only entitled to one parking space and one storage locker.

The Tribunal further held that the drainage pipe was permitted by a statutory easement under the Condominium Act, 1998, and that it lacked jurisdiction to address the alleged water leakage.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought a motion to introduce four new documents as exhibits late in a hearing regarding a records request under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the evidence was either not necessary, could have been discovered earlier, or would introduce unfairness to the respondent by violating the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to ask limited follow-up questions of the respondent's witness instead.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion for late disclosure of security camera footage in an ongoing dispute regarding the installation of an electric vehicle charging station as a disability accommodation.

The applicant opposed the motion but did not claim prejudice, arguing the footage was not inconsistent with her disability.

The Tribunal granted the motion, noting its power to control its own process and allowing the applicant two weeks to provide rebuttal evidence.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application on the basis that the Condominium Authority Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily concerning the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought an exemption from the corporation's pet rule to allow her son to keep an emotional support animal that exceeded the corporation's 25-pound weight limit.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that because the dispute involved the validity and enforceability of the corporation's pet rule and emotional support animal policy, it fell squarely within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to exclude the testimony of two witnesses called by the applicant owner in a records dispute.

The witnesses testified about their own experiences requesting records from the corporation.

The corporation argued the evidence should be excluded on grounds of relevance, repetition, the rule against similar fact evidence, and hearsay.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the evidence potentially relevant to whether adequate records were provided, and noting that tribunals have broad discretion to admit hearsay and are not bound by criminal law principles regarding similar fact evidence.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent tenant to remove his motorcycle from a common element area in the underground parking garage.

The respondent and the intervenor landlord argued that the motorcycle did not impede access to any infrastructure and had been parked there for years without objection.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was parking in a common element in violation of a reasonable condominium rule.

The Tribunal held that the condominium corporation was not estopped from enforcing the rule, as it had provided multiple notices to the respondent.

The respondent was ordered to permanently remove the motorcycle within 21 days, failing which the condominium corporation could remove it at his or the landlord's expense.

The applicant condominium owner brought a motion to add a fourth Request for Records to his ongoing application before the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The respondent condominium corporation consented to the addition.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it more efficient and fair to deal with all four requests in a single hearing.

The applicant condominium owner sought an order permitting her to use the visitor parking area to charge her electric vehicle or requiring the condominium corporations to install an electric vehicle charging station.

The respondent and intervenor condominium corporations brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the limitation period had expired.

The Tribunal found that the dispute arose on March 1, 2017, when the applicant was denied permission to use the visitor parking area.

As the application was brought more than three years after the dispute arose, it was statute-barred under section 1.36 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium owner, sought a determination that he was entitled to use the outdoor accessible parking spaces at his condominium.

The respondent condominium corporation argued he was parking in visitor parking and lacked sufficient medical evidence to justify an accommodation, subsequently charging him legal costs and registering a lien against his unit.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the applicant was parking in designated accessible spaces and was entitled to do so because he possessed a valid provincial Accessible Parking Permit, which satisfied the condominium's declaration.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease enforcement actions, remove the lien, and pay the applicant $200 in costs and $1,500 in damages for harassment and non-compliance with the Condominium Act.

The applicant, a former unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order directing the respondent condominium corporation to provide her with certain records.

During the hearing of preliminary motions, the applicant sold her unit.

The Tribunal determined that the applicant's sale of her unit ended her entitlement to the requested records under section 55(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal also dismissed motions challenging the authority of the respondent's representative, requesting a three-member panel, and seeking confidentiality of the adjudicative record.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant unit owner requested records from the respondent condominium corporation relating to the replacement of Kitec plumbing piping.

The applicant alleged that certain records were missing, arguing that the corporation failed to follow the correct process for the replacement.

The Tribunal found that the corporation had produced all requested records and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to investigate the corporation's decision-making process.

The application for further records was dismissed, and no costs or penalties were awarded.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested copies of legal invoices referencing his unit from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent refused, claiming solicitor-client and litigation privilege, and statutory exemptions under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had waived privilege by disclosing the total amount of the legal fees and the general nature of the advice in a letter to all owners.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested records, subject to redactions for the specific legal advice given, upon payment of a $66.80 production fee.

No costs or penalties were awarded.

The applicant brought a second motion requesting the Tribunal to reconsider its earlier decision denying a motion to correct or clarify a dismissal order.

The applicant sought to correct perceived incorrect statements of fact and misrepresentations.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the requested changes were substantive and beyond its jurisdiction under Rule 30 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal also noted that the matter was moot as the dismissal order had already been published online.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 30 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice to correct or clarify a previous decision that dismissed his application for condominium records.

The applicant argued that the previous decision misrepresented his testimony and submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to make the requested changes, as Rule 30 only permits the correction of typographical, calculation, or similar minor errors, not substantive changes to the decision's characterization of evidence or arguments.

The applicant brought a motion to have her name redacted from a previously issued Condominium Authority Tribunal decision, citing concerns about privacy, potential abuse, and a lack of accommodation during the hearing.

The respondent condominium corporation opposed the motion.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, applying the open court principle and finding that the applicant failed to provide evidence demonstrating that anonymization was necessary to protect important interests, such as a reasonable apprehension of violence.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for unredacted copies of the AGM sign-in sheet, ballots, and proxies.

The respondent condominium corporation agreed to provide the records but maintained it was required by the Condominium Act, 1998 to redact information identifying other owners or units.

The Tribunal held that the corporation did not have discretion to provide unredacted records and directed the corporation to provide the redacted records upon payment of a reasonable production fee of $102.15.

No costs or penalties were awarded.