Marc Bhalla

The applicant brought a motion to correct or clarify a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed their case regarding condominium records.

The applicant requested seven changes, primarily disagreeing with the Tribunal's findings of fact and characterizations of the issues, including the description of a water leak.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the requested changes were either substantive in nature, which is not permitted under Rule 46.7, or immaterial to the core issue of the records dispute.

The applicant unit owner sought records and a $5,000 penalty from the respondent condominium corporation regarding a chargeback for a toilet leak.

The applicant argued that more documentation should exist to justify the chargeback decision.

The Tribunal found the respondent's condominium manager credible in stating that all existing leak-related records had already been provided.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding there was no evidence the respondent refused to provide records without reasonable excuse.

The applicant filed a case at the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking a parking space accommodation, while also having a broader claim at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

After the parties failed to reach an agreement in mediation, the applicant withdrew their case at the Tribunal.

The respondent brought a motion for costs, arguing the applicant acted in bad faith and engaged in forum shopping.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the self-represented applicant did not act with malice, bad faith, or improper purpose in navigating the concurrent proceedings.

The applicant condominium owner requested two Periodic Information Certificates from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided the certificates after the 30-day deadline.

The applicant challenged the adequacy and content of the certificates and sought a penalty for the delay.

The Tribunal found that disputes over the content of the certificates fall outside its jurisdiction under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal also declined to order a penalty, finding that the respondent had a reasonable excuse for the delay due to concurrently processing a large volume of records for the applicant in another mediation.

The applicant, a condominium owner, requested shared facilities committee meeting minutes from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to reply within the prescribed 30-day timeline using the required form, which the Tribunal deemed a refusal without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to seek out and provide any additional minutes not yet disclosed.

Given the respondent's repeated failure to provide records in this and a previous case, the Tribunal awarded a $2,000 penalty and $200 in costs to the applicant.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's case regarding the adequacy of records, arguing the application was filed late and the request was therefore abandoned under section 13.10 of Ontario Regulation 48/01.

The tribunal found that the applicant filed the case within the required six-month period from delivering the request for records.

The motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent condominium corporation failed to comply with a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the agreement by failing to pay a $75 reimbursement within the 14-day deadline and by providing unapproved draft meeting minutes instead of approved minutes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the approved minutes, confirm the payment was recorded correctly, and pay the applicant's $125 filing fees.

The applicant's requests for fines and policy changes were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant unit owner sought incident reports regarding noise complaints from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to respond within the prescribed 30-day timeline but provided the available records shortly after the applicant filed the case with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the respondent refused to provide records without a reasonable excuse, as staffing changes did not justify the delay.

A penalty of $150 was awarded against the respondent, along with $75 in filing fees.

The parties resolved all substantive issues during Stage 2 Mediation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The only remaining issue was whether the applicant should recover their $75 filing fee.

The applicant submitted that the respondent did not address the issues until the fee was paid to move the case to mediation.

The respondent did not make submissions.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the $75 filing fee, with a provision allowing the applicant to set-off the amount against common expenses if not paid within 30 days.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal against the respondent condominium corporation.

The matter proceeded to mediation, but the applicant ceased participating on the tribunal's online dispute resolution platform.

After issuing a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and receiving no submissions, the tribunal found the applicant had abandoned the case.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal for records.

Before joining the case, the respondent condominium corporation provided the records and agreed to reimburse the filing fees.

The only remaining issue was the applicant's claim for legal fees.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for legal fees, finding no exceptional reasons under Rule 46.1 of the CAT Rules of Practice to order them, and formally ordered the reimbursement of the filing fees.

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

The applicant subsequently failed to pay the required fee to move the matter to a tribunal decision hearing.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the tribunal dismissed the case for abandonment.

The applicant condominium unit owner sought various records from the respondent condominium corporation, which had recently transitioned to self-management.

The respondent failed to participate in the hearing and had not fully addressed the applicant's five requests for records.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to core records, including financial statements, board minutes, and the record of owners, but not to an insurance application, notice of termination, or hydro reconciliation.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant the requested records, $200 in costs, and a $3,000 penalty due to the respondent's refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought a motion to include three additional records requests in an upcoming Stage 3 Tribunal Decision hearing regarding two earlier records requests.

The respondent condominium corporation did not participate in the motion.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the requests were related, adding them would not prejudice the respondent, and consolidating the issues would be fair, focused, and efficient.

The applicant failed to pay the required fee to advance its case to Stage 3 within the 30-day deadline under Rule 32.2 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant had attempted to make the payment before the deadline, but the payment failed.

The tribunal applied the Frey v. MacDonald factors for extending time and found that the applicant had a bona fide intention to proceed, the delay was short, and there was minimal prejudice to the respondent, who had not participated in the mediation.

The tribunal granted the applicant a one-week extension to pay the fee.

The applicant sought records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties reached a settlement during the mediation stage of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution process.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide specific board meeting minutes, financial statements, governing documents, and scrutineer's reports, as well as reimburse the applicant's filing fee.

The applicant condominium corporation filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking records from the respondent condominium corporation, claiming to be a unit owner of the respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that its jurisdiction over records disputes is limited to records kept by a condominium corporation under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998, and does not extend to records sought from a unit owner.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant knowingly filed false or misleading information by claiming to be a unit owner to bypass the filing restrictions.

The case was dismissed at the mediation stage with no costs awarded.

The applicant, a unit owner and former director, requested condominium records including the Record of Owners and Mortgagees and a policy on liens and arrears.

The applicant alleged the owners' list was inaccurate and the policy provided was incomplete.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the condominium corporation failed to maintain the owners' list accurately or failed to provide the correct policy.

However, because the condominium corporation delayed providing the owners' list beyond the 30-day statutory timeline, the Tribunal awarded a nominal penalty of $75 against the respondent.

The applicant, a non-resident condominium unit owner, sought an order that the respondent condominium corporation failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide a Record of Owners and Mortgagees by a specified date.

The respondent provided an incomplete list of owners before the deadline and only provided the complete record during the tribunal hearing.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement agreement by missing the deadline.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant $125 for the Stage 3 tribunal filing fee incurred due to the delay.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, made multiple requests for core and non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to adequately reply to the requests and did not participate in the Condominium Authority Tribunal hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested records and pay a $2,000 penalty for its refusal without reasonable excuse, along with $200 in filing fees.

However, the Tribunal cautioned the applicant against making excessively frequent records requests, which complicated the matter and placed an unfair burden on the respondent.