6 total
Condominium owner's nuisance application regarding second-hand smoke dismissed for lack of objective evidence.
The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that second-hand smoke from a neighbouring unit was migrating into her unit, creating a nuisance.
She claimed the condominium corporation failed to enforce its no-smoking rules against the neighbouring tenant and owner.
The Tribunal found no objective evidence that the neighbouring tenant was smoking or that the applicant was experiencing smoke and odour at a level constituting a substantial and unreasonable interference.
The Tribunal concluded the condominium corporation had diligently investigated the complaints and fulfilled its enforcement obligations.
The application was dismissed without costs.
Confidentiality order granted to protect sensitive medical information disclosed during condominium dispute proceedings.
During a condominium dispute proceeding, the parties submitted documents containing sensitive personal medical information.
The Tribunal, with the agreement of the parties, issued a confidentiality order under Rule 21.5 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal Rules of Practice to protect these documents and the recording of a cross-examination session from public disclosure.
Condominium awarded $25,000 in partial indemnity costs following compliance application against hoarding unit owner.
The applicant condominium corporation brought a compliance application against the respondent unit owner, who suffered from a hoarding disorder.
The parties resolved the underlying application by consent order but could not agree on costs.
The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $37,407.79.
The court found that while the respondent was not morally blameworthy, the innocent unit owners should not bear the cost of compelling compliance.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $25,000, reducing the requested amount due to duplication, unnecessary steps, and unrecoverable expenses.
Settlement confirming a development permit for a new dwelling on the Niagara Escarpment approved.
The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit to demolish a chalet and construct a new dwelling.
Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that modified the building materials, landscaping, and grading to reduce visual impacts.
The Hearing Officers reviewed the revised conditions of approval, found them to be in accordance with the Niagara Escarpment Plan, and confirmed the Commission's decision as modified by the settlement.
Intervenor status granted to adjacent condominium corporation sharing the disputed accessible parking area.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, specifically regarding a failure to accommodate her need for accessible parking.
The disputed parking area is shared with an adjacent condominium corporation.
The adjacent condominium corporation requested intervenor status, which was uncontested.
The Tribunal granted the request for intervenor status and permitted the respondents to amend their Response to address the applicant's amended remedial claims.
Tribunal grants requests to add affected party and amend application to clarify remedies sought.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her disability-related need for accessible parking.
She brought requests for an order during proceedings to provide notice to an adjacent condominium corporation as an affected party, to correct the legal name of the respondent condominium, and to amend her application to add non-monetary and public interest remedies.
The Tribunal granted the requests, noting the adjacent condominium shared the disputed parking area and the amendments provided greater clarity without prejudicing the respondents.
