Maria Dimakas

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's case, arguing that the applicant had filed an identical claim regarding parking rules in Small Claims Court, constituting an abuse of process.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over parking disputes under the Condominium Act and its regulations.

Because the Small Claims Court proceeding was paused pending this decision, there was no risk of the respondent having to defend two claims simultaneously, and dismissing the application would prejudice the self-represented applicant.

The applicant unit owner brought a case regarding chargebacks stemming from a compliance letter issued after their tenant moved into the unit.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the chargebacks related to safety issues under s. 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and rules regarding elevator use and tenant notification, which are outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The case was dismissed.

The applicant condominium owner submitted a request for core and non-core records.

The respondent condominium corporation provided the core records and estimated fees for the non-core records.

The applicant alleged the corporation refused to provide the non-core records without reasonable excuse, arguing the fees were unreasonable and that he was entitled to free in-person examination.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation did not refuse to provide the records and that the estimated fees were generally reasonable, though it ordered minor modifications to correct calculation errors.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for a penalty and ordered the applicant to pay $2,000 in costs to the respondent due to the inclusion of extraneous issues that increased legal costs.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request.

The matter proceeded to Stage 2 Mediation but was subsequently abandoned, with no communication on the portal for over 15 days.

After issuing a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to which the applicant did not respond, the Tribunal ordered the application closed for abandonment under Rule 34.3(d) of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant unit owner filed an application disputing indemnification charges of $2,288.25 levied by the respondent condominium corporation.

The charges arose from legal costs incurred by the corporation in addressing threatening and discriminatory statements made by the applicant's former tenant towards a security guard.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the indemnification charges arose from violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and section 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, which are excluded from the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Ontario Regulation 179/17.

The applicant, a commercial unit owner, challenged the validity of a new parking rule enacted by the condominium corporation that prohibited the parking of utility trailers and limited owners to two parking spaces in front of their units.

The applicant argued the rule was unreasonable and inconsistent with the declaration, which provided for 'first come, first served' parking.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the board followed the required statutory process for enacting the rule and that the rule was a reasonable response to complaints about parking spaces being used for storage.

The Tribunal concluded the rule was valid and consistent with the declaration, dismissing the application without costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against a commercial unit owner and its tenant for violating several condominium rules by storing garbage, repairing motorcycles, and obstructing parking spaces on the common elements.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondents breached rules prohibiting the storage of garbage, debris, and equipment on the common elements, as well as rules against repairing motor vehicles on the common elements and driving on fire routes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately comply with the rules and awarded the applicant $1,798.44 in costs and tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against the respondent unit owner for breaching the corporation's non-smoking rule and creating a nuisance through smoke and odour migration.

The respondent initially failed to participate but later joined the written hearing, claiming she had ceased smoking on the grounds.

The Tribunal found that the respondent and her guests breached the non-smoking rule and section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease smoking or vaping in her unit and on the common elements, and awarded the applicant its pre-tribunal enforcement costs, filing fees, and a portion of its legal costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against a tenant for creating unreasonable noise (screaming, banging, chanting) and against the unit owner for failing to ensure the tenant's compliance.

The tenant claimed the noise was normal day-to-day living and religious practice, alleging harassment and discrimination.

The Tribunal found the tenant's noise constituted a substantial and unreasonable interference with other residents' quiet enjoyment, violating the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules.

The Tribunal also found the owner failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance.

The tenant and owner were ordered to comply with the noise rules and jointly pay $4,500 in damages and $21,500 in costs.

In a condominium noise dispute, the applicants named 'Occupant' as a respondent, intending to identify the unit owner's daughter and caregiver who frequently visited.

The unit owner brought a motion to remove 'Occupant' as a party.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the daughter did not reside in the unit and lacked sufficient possession or control to meet the definition of an 'occupier' under the Condominium Act, 1998 or the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Monitor in CCAA proceedings brought an unopposed motion to extend the stay of proceedings, approve a settlement agreement with a condominium corporation and another party, and approve its activities and fees.

The court found the settlement agreement reasonable and necessary, providing immediate benefits to stakeholders and a path to reducing a bond.

The court extended the stay to March 3, 2023, and approved the Monitor's activities and fees.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent tenant to permanently remove his two dogs from the premises due to persistent noise complaints and aggressive behaviour.

The tenant argued the dogs were service animals and the complaints were exaggerated.

The Tribunal found the tenant in persistent breach of the corporation's pet nuisance rules and ordered the dogs removed.

The Tribunal also ordered the tenant to pay the majority of the corporation's legal costs, while the respondent landlord was ordered to pay pre-litigation costs pursuant to the corporation's indemnification provisions, as he had made reasonable efforts to obtain the tenant's compliance.

The court addressed costs following a summary judgment motion where the plaintiff, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2051, largely succeeded in having three debt instruments (a promissory note and two mortgages) declared oppressive and significantly reduced in value against the third party, Georgian Clairlea Corporation ("Georgian").

The plaintiff sought costs as the successful party, while Georgian claimed contractual costs under the mortgages.

The court found the plaintiff to be the successful party and rejected Georgian's claim for contractual costs, citing Georgian's oppressive conduct as a "special circumstance" justifying deprivation of such costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs up to its November 2017 offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, totaling $150,453.20, after a minor reduction for excessive pre-trial costs and unused expert reports.

The moving party, assignee of the developer, sought summary judgment to enforce three debt instruments against the respondent condominium corporation.

The condominium corporation argued the instruments were oppressive due to inadequate disclosure to purchasers.

The court found the disclosure regarding the service unit mortgage and parking unit mortgage was confusing and insufficient, breaching the reasonable expectations of the purchasers.

The court reduced the principal amounts of both mortgages to reflect fair value and reasonable expectations.

The court also found a promissory note for land transfer tax was void for lack of a borrowing by-law and oppressive as it circumvented the developer's statutory obligation for first-year budget deficits.

The court awarded the condominium corporation amounts for common expense arrears, a first-year budget deficit, and reserve fund payments, and declined to appoint a receiver.

Georgian Properties Corporation (GPC) brought a motion to strike the factum of Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2051 (TSCC) in its entirety or in part, arguing that it raised issues outside the scope of the pleadings, contrary to a prior settlement agreement and court decisions.

The court found that the majority of TSCC's factum was proper, as many arguments related to the adequacy of disclosure or the exorbitant nature of mortgages, which were within the existing pleadings.

However, specific paragraphs alleging new claims, such as breach of agreements of purchase and sale or broader breaches of fiduciary duty, were struck.

The court denied GPC's request for the summary judgment motion to proceed before a different judge, citing efficiency and the judge's ability to remain impartial.

GPC's motion was deemed largely unnecessary, and GPC was ordered to pay TSCC's partial indemnity costs of $9,134.92.

This appeal concerns a statutory interpretation dispute regarding the priority of a condominium corporation's lien under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The appellant condominium corporation obtained a compliance order and costs award against a unit owner in February 2011.

The owner defaulted on payment of the costs in March 2011.

The corporation added the costs to common expenses in August 2011 and registered a lien certificate in December 2011.

The respondent mortgagee held a first mortgage on the unit.

The central issue was whether the corporation's lien lost priority over the mortgage because it failed to register the lien certificate within three months of the default, as required by section 85(2) of the Act.

The court held that the default triggering the three-month perfection period occurred when the owner failed to pay the costs order in March 2011, not when the owner failed to pay the claimed common expenses in September 2011.

Accordingly, the corporation's failure to register within three months caused the lien to lose priority.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent condominium corporation breached several terms of a settlement agreement resolving a previous human rights complaint.

The respondent conceded it was four months late in modifying rooftop stairs and failed to provide timely written confirmation of other completed terms, but denied breaching the confidentiality clause.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached the agreement through these minor delays but dismissed the confidentiality claim.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $1,000 in monetary compensation for the adverse effect on his legitimate expectations and the feelings of being ignored, noting the breaches were not fundamental but still warranted a remedy.