Sonja Hodis

The applicant condominium owner filed an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records, including meeting minutes and updated rules, and improperly redacted board minutes.

The Tribunal found that the corporation had provided all responsive records, that an informal town hall did not require minutes, and that the redactions to board minutes were justified under the litigation exception.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $1,000 in nominal costs due to late document submissions that increased the respondent's legal fees.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent unit owner above him was creating unreasonable noise contrary to s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, and sought an order for the condominium corporation to repair the subfloor.

The Tribunal found that the noises were creaking sounds caused by normal walking and the building's construction, not by any unreasonable activity.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs to the condominium corporation.

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 filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 3.

The applicant subsequently requested permission to withdraw the case with no award of costs or penalty.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed under Rule 43.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant unit owner made requests for records from the respondent condominium corporation.

During Stage 2 mediation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal, the parties reached an agreement regarding the production of outstanding non-core financial records relating to patio and balcony rebuilds.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the applicant to pay a $100 fee, following which the respondent would provide the specified redacted invoices, with no order as to costs.

The applicant brought a motion to merge two condominium records cases currently in the negotiation stage.

The Tribunal initially sent notice of the motion to the condominium corporation rather than its counsel, resulting in an order made without the respondent's input.

To ensure a fair and efficient process under Rule 4.1, the Tribunal corrected the order and directed that the two cases, which relate to records requests submitted within a short period, be merged into a single proceeding.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking minutes of board meetings held over a 12-month period.

During the mediation stage, the respondent condominium corporation provided the requested minutes, with some redactions, and explained that no meetings were held during three of the months.

The parties agreed to a consent order resolving the dispute, under which the respondent agreed to reimburse the applicant's $75 filing fee and the applicant withdrew his request for a penalty.

The Tribunal issued the consent order and closed the case.

The applicant brought a case before the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding noise complaints.

During Stage 3 of the online dispute resolution process, the parties agreed to settle the matter.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to retain an engineer to complete an investigation into the noise complaints, with all parties ordered to cooperate and provide access to their units.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application against the condominium corporation and the former owner of the unit above his, complaining of unreasonable noise and vibration.

During the proceedings, it was revealed that the upper unit had been sold to a new owner.

The Tribunal ordered that the new owner be added as an intervenor, as she would be directly affected by any potential remedies.

The Tribunal also adjourned the hearing for six weeks and directed the condominium corporation to conduct an independent third-party investigation into the noise, while requiring the applicant and the new owner to maintain activity and noise logs.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against a unit owner and an unidentified occupant for breaching the corporation's non-smoking and quiet enjoyment rules.

The respondents failed to participate in the hearing, which proceeded as a default proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the respondents violated the rules by smoking tobacco and marijuana in the unit and common elements, creating a nuisance odour.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to cease smoking and awarded the applicant $3,500 in legal costs, $864.13 in pre-litigation indemnification, and $150 in tribunal fees.

The appellant, a board member of a condominium corporation, appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a minor variance allowing the applicants to construct a deck with a reduced rear yard setback and increased lot coverage.

The appellant argued the variance would interfere with the condominium corporation's easement and restrictive covenants regarding maintenance access to a shoreline revetment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and that the enforcement of private restrictive covenants and easements falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal requesting an accessible parking space for his spouse and challenging the reassignment of parking spots.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the case, arguing the issues were resolved because the applicant's spouse had passed away and the parking spots had been reassigned according to the survey.

The Tribunal found the issues were moot and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal also awarded $1,000 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant's unreasonable behaviour in raising irrelevant issues.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an interim injunction regarding a family cottage property.

The parties, who are siblings, disputed ownership and use of the property after the defendant changed the locks and excluded the plaintiffs.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' claim for a constructive or resulting trust based on their financial contributions and historical use.

The court granted the CPL and an interim injunction preserving the status quo, allowing both families exclusive use of separate cottages on the property pending the resolution of the action.

The moving parties, named as estate trustees in the deceased's will, brought a motion to remove a notice of objection filed by the responding party, the deceased's daughter.

The responding party alleged undue influence and unfitness of the trustees but provided no evidentiary basis to support her claims.

The court found that the will was validly executed and that the responding party failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold required to call the will's validity into question.

The motion was granted, the notice of objection was removed, and the court directed the issuance of the Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.

Following dismissal of a motion to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing an action for delay under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court addressed costs of the motion.

The successful defendants sought substantial costs, with one defendant relying on an offer to settle to justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court reviewed the applicable principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 57.01 and 57.03, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness.

While accepting the reasonableness of one defendant’s costs outline, the court found another defendant’s claimed hours excessive.

Taking into account the offer to settle and overall fairness, the court fixed equal costs awards payable by the plaintiffs to each successful defendant.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing their action for delay.

The action, which involved allegations of improper diversion of corporate funds and an improvident sale of land, had been dormant for an extended period.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately explain the litigation delay, failed to prove inadvertence, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice that arose due to the passage of time and the expiration of limitation periods.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged that the respondent condominium corporation's declaration restricting occupancy to a 'one family residence' forced him to discriminate against prospective student tenants, claiming discrimination based on family status and reprisal.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application based on a prior consent judgment and the Court of Appeal's decision in Kilfoyl, which upheld the same declaration.

The Tribunal struck the family status allegations, finding the Kilfoyl decision binding and determinative of that issue.

However, the Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend the application to explicitly plead reprisal and allowed the reprisal claim to proceed, as it was not explicitly addressed in Kilfoyl.

The appellants, owners of two condominium units, appealed a judgment enforcing a condominium declaration that restricted occupancy to a 'one family residence'.

The appellants had rented their units to multiple unrelated students.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the restriction was valid under the Condominium Act, 1998, and did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The court distinguished land use planning principles from condominium governance and upheld the application judge's exercise of discretion.

The appellant unit owner rented his condominium units to students, prompting the respondent condominium corporation to seek a compliance order enforcing a 'one family residence' declaration.

The appellant moved to stay the application, arguing the Condominium Act mandated mediation and arbitration.

The motion judge dismissed the stay, noting the dispute involved tenants who were not subject to arbitration, and splitting the proceedings would be unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the motion judge properly exercised his discretion under the Arbitration Act and Courts of Justice Act to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The appellants appealed a judgment that awarded the respondents a declaration of trespass, general damages, punitive damages, and costs following a property line dispute over a fence.

The application judge had decided the matter under Rule 14.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure despite conflicting affidavit evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that Rule 14.05(3) is not available for the resolution of general and punitive damage claims where material facts are in dispute.

The court set aside the damages and costs awards and directed a trial of an issue regarding the respondents' entitlement to damages.