Marc Bhalla

The applicant, a condominium owner, requested a large volume of records from the respondent condominium corporation due to governance concerns.

The respondent provided most records but withheld quotes, explanations, employee T4s, and director emails.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the case, finding that the applicant was not entitled to explanations, employee records under s. 55(4)(a) of the Condominium Act, 1998, or emails between directors.

The Tribunal noted it lacks jurisdiction to address the applicant's broader governance concerns.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a case against a unit owner and their tenants for breaching condominium rules by parking in visitor parking, parking in other residents' spaces, and speeding on the common elements.

The owner argued they could not control their tenants and cited a language barrier.

The Tribunal found that the rules were violated and that the owner is responsible for their tenants' compliance under the condominium's declaration.

The Tribunal ordered the tenants to cease the violations and ordered the owner to ensure compliance and pay $686.75 in costs and tribunal fees.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation and a neighbouring unit owner breached a settlement agreement regarding yard maintenance.

The applicant claimed the neighbour only partially cut grass and pulled weeds.

The respondent unit owner denied the violation, and the condominium corporation provided evidence that the yard was neat and tidy.

The applicant subsequently confirmed the yard was fully maintained.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the case, finding no remaining breach and noting the issues were minor and did not justify the use of the Tribunal's resources.

The applicant filed a records case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding the condominium corporation's failure to hold an owner vote for common element modifications and lack of clear communication.

The Tribunal dismissed the case at the mediation stage, finding that the issues raised did not relate to the types of records kept or access to them, and therefore fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant condominium corporation and the respondent unit owners reached a settlement during Stage 2 mediation regarding complaints of cannabis smoke, odour migration, and unit cleanliness.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondents to cease smoking or vaporizing cannabis in a manner that causes odour transfer, to clean and sanitize their unit within 30 days, and to pay the corporation $5,000.

The applicant filed a nuisance case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking an order to allow the planting of trees to address privacy, noise, and light concerns from a major road.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the noise and lighting issues stemmed from ordinary traffic and streetlights, not from the condominium, and there was no allegation of unreasonable noise or light.

The Tribunal dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement resolving a prior records dispute.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent breached the agreement by failing to provide revised periodic information certificates and answers to questions by the agreed deadline, though these breaches were inconsequential as they were remedied prior to the application.

However, the respondent remained in breach of the term requiring payment of $200 for tribunal fees.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the $200 and declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant unit owner filed a case regarding nuisance and disruption related to smoke migration.

One of the respondents brought a motion to dismiss the case during the Stage 2 mediation process, seeking various orders including costs and a no-contact order.

The Tribunal determined that the case fell within its jurisdiction under the Condominium Act, 1998, and denied the motion to dismiss.

The request for costs was also denied, as the Tribunal does not typically order compensation for time spent on proceedings.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a case against a unit owner, alleging that her two young children were creating unreasonable noise that disturbed the residents in the unit below.

The tribunal found that the noise was consistent with ordinary living and that the building lacked acoustical insulation between units.

The tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove the respondent was creating unreasonable noise and dismissed the case.

The applicant unit owner requested core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided some records but failed to provide the remainder and did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent refused to provide the records without reasonable excuse.

The respondent was ordered to provide the outstanding records, reimburse the applicant's filing fees, and pay a $2,500 penalty.

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 filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding nuisance concerns.

The case proceeded to mediation, where the parties worked together to address the issues.

The applicant was subsequently given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fee within 15 days.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the case under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed a case regarding a December 2022 request for condominium records.

The applicant subsequently made another request in June 2023 for the same types of records to update their currency, and brought a motion to include the June request in the current case.

The respondent did not make submissions on the motion.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal granted the motion, finding that including both requests would allow for the most efficient process.

The applicant unit owner filed a request for records from the respondent condominium corporation.

After the case was scheduled for a hearing, the respondent provided the requested records, except for those it had previously refused.

The applicant failed to make submissions by the deadlines.

The tribunal dismissed the case but ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's $200 filing fee, reasoning that a unit owner should not have to advance to a hearing to receive records they are entitled to.

The applicant unit owner filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal after the respondent condominium corporation delayed and refused requests for records.

During the proceedings, the respondent provided the requested records, but the applicant challenged the adequacy of the records and the extent of the redactions.

The Tribunal found that the redactions were permitted by the Condominium Act and that the records provided were adequate.

However, because the respondent initially refused the records without reasonable excuse, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $275 penalty and $400 in costs for the applicant's filing fees.

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 applicant brought a case before the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding noise and nuisance.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to concerns that the requested relief, including an order to change condominium by-laws, was outside its jurisdiction.

After receiving submissions from the applicant clarifying the issues and relief sought, the Tribunal was satisfied that the case fell within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal ordered that the case proceed to a Stage 3 hearing.

The applicant filed two similar condominium records cases against the respondent.

As the issues were similar and the first case was in the early stages of the hearing process, the Tribunal proposed merging the two cases in the interest of efficiency and fairness pursuant to Rule 18.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

Both parties agreed, and the Tribunal ordered the cases merged.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 46 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice to correct alleged factual errors in a previous decision dismissing their case.

The tribunal noted that Rule 46.3 requires such requests to be made within 30 days of receiving the decision.

Because the applicant brought the motion more than 30 days after receiving the decision and a previous motion order, the request was out of time.

The motion was denied without addressing the requested changes.

The applicant, a condominium owner, submitted a request for records to the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent agreed to provide some records at no cost, some at a cost, and refused others.

The Tribunal found that the respondent refused to provide certain records without a reasonable excuse, although the applicant's voluminous requests contributed to overwhelming the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested records, pay a penalty of $275, and pay costs of $125.