Luis A. Hernandez

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment for a 43-storey mixed-use building, the parties disputed the dates to be included in the Procedural Order.

The applicant and the municipality agreed on a schedule, but an added party condominium corporation proposed alternative dates.

The Tribunal found that the dates proposed by the statutory parties would not prejudice the added party and would allow for a fair and expeditious resolution.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order with the statutory parties' dates.

The applicants filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal that proceeded to mediation.

After mediation failed to result in a settlement, the primary applicant was given the opportunity to move the matter to a tribunal decision.

The applicant failed to pay the required fee to advance the case within the 15-day period.

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

At a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment, the Tribunal considered a request from an adjacent townhouse community to convert from Participant to Party status.

Finding that the community had a genuine interest and intended to call expert evidence, the Tribunal granted Party status.

The Tribunal also set dates for the submission of the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 14-day video hearing.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

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

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application before the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a request for core and non-core records.

The Tribunal found that the respondent condominium corporation provided some records adequately but refused to provide unapproved board minutes and the most recent reserve fund study without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the outstanding records, subject to the applicant paying reasonable estimated fees for certain non-core records.

Given the respondent's history of non-compliance in previous Tribunal proceedings, the Tribunal imposed a $2,000 penalty and awarded $200 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant condominium owner sought records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties agreed to settle the dispute in Stage 3 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide the requested meeting minutes and pay a total of $601.80, which included a $400 penalty for refusing to provide records without a reasonable excuse under section 1.44(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998, along with reimbursement of the tribunal filing fee and records costs.

The applicant sought access to various condominium records from the respondent 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 respondent to provide specified board meeting minutes, legal invoices, and financial statements, along with a $375 payment to the applicant for the denial of access to records.

The appellant appealed the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment's decision denying minor variances to permit an accessory dwelling unit within three townhomes and to reduce the required parking spaces.

The Tribunal found that the uncontested evidence, supported by the City's planning staff report, demonstrated that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeals were allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicants, unit owners in the respondent condominium corporation, brought an application for an oppression remedy, alleging that the corporation's representatives engaged in coercive and abusive behaviour regarding noise complaints, repair issues, balcony storage, and the rejection of a board nomination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the conduct of both parties was less than ideal, the respondent's actions did not meet the legal test for oppression and were a valid exercise of balancing communal interests with private rights.

Following a successful application to terminate a tenancy and evict the respondents for unpaid rent, the applicants sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The respondents failed to deliver costs submissions.

The court found that the respondents' conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous behaviour required for an elevated costs award.

Costs were awarded to the applicants on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $9,000.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her oppression application and the granting of summary judgment to enforce a condominium lien.

The appeal concerned whether a special assessment for repairs was remedial work under s. 97(1) of the Condominium Act, thereby not requiring a member vote, and whether the condominium's conduct constituted oppression.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's determination that the work was remedial, upheld the oppression analysis, and affirmed the summary judgment, concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The applicant landlords sought an order terminating the respondents' tenancy, evicting them, and awarding $47,300 in unpaid rent.

Because the rent arrears exceeded the Landlord and Tenant Board's monetary jurisdiction, the landlords brought the application in the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to section 207(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The tenants requested an adjournment and argued the application should be dismissed under section 83(3) of the Act, alleging outstanding repairs and retaliatory motives.

The court denied the adjournment and granted the application, finding no evidence to support the tenants' allegations and noting their repeated failure to pay rent or provide evidence of payment.

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

After several delays due to the applicant's medical emergency and a change in representation, the mediation reached an impasse.

The applicant was given a deadline to move the case to Stage 3 - Tribunal Decision but failed to do so.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the case under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

During Stage 3 of the proceedings, the applicant missed multiple deadlines to provide an opening statement and failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the case as abandoned.

The respondents' request for $5,000 in costs was denied, as the Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant acted improperly or caused additional delay or expense.

The applicant and respondent agreed to settle their dispute regarding condominium records during Stage 2 mediation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order under section 1.47 of the Condominium Act, 1998, requiring the applicant to pay $126.00 to the respondent, after which the respondent must provide the requested housekeeping and cleaning service invoice records.

The applicant, a unit owner, sought to withdraw his case against the condominium corporation regarding the enforcement of parking rules.

The respondent opposed a withdrawal without costs, arguing it had incurred significant expenses and that the applicant was engaging in a pattern of disruptive litigation.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal without costs, finding that the applicant's request was reasonable in light of a recent Tribunal decision in a related matter and that he had not behaved vexatiously or unduly delayed the proceedings.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought applications alleging that the condominium corporation failed to consistently enforce its pet and parking rules and failed to provide a requested record (a grounds map).

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the board acted reasonably and within its discretion in enforcing the outdated rules while in the process of updating them.

The Tribunal also found that the corporation did not refuse to provide the requested record, as it provided the map as soon as it was located.

The applications were dismissed, and no costs or penalties were awarded.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant unit owner's case under Rules 17.1(a) and (c) of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant alleged the corporation failed to enforce its rules against the board president, whose vehicle was leaking oil in a parking spot.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the reasonableness of the corporation's enforcement actions was a central issue, not a minor one, and that an improper purpose was not established at this preliminary stage.

The Tribunal set guidelines to keep the proceeding focused on the relevant parking enforcement issues.

The applicant condominium owner requested board minutes from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided minutes but failed to disclose that it had withheld 'in camera' minutes containing redacted information.

The Tribunal found this constituted a refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse and ordered a $1,000 penalty.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to provide written explanations for redactions in two sets of minutes, but dismissed the applicant's claims regarding missing decisions and the respondent's request for legal costs.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking condominium records and minutes.

The respondent provided the records during mediation.

The applicant sought to proceed to adjudication to recover Tribunal fees, arguing the provided rules were inadequate compared to an older version.

The Tribunal dismissed the case, finding it was filed for an improper purpose, the issues were too minor to justify further proceedings, and disputes over the rule amendment process were outside its jurisdiction.