Mary Ann Spencer

The applicant filed a case alleging unreasonable noise from the respondent's condominium unit, but withdrew it during mediation after being advised that the child primarily responsible for the noise had relocated.

Two weeks later, the applicant brought a motion to re-open the case, citing continued noise.

The Tribunal denied the motion, noting that its Rules of Practice do not provide for re-opening a withdrawn case and finding no reason to vary the rules, as the applicant had been warned that some noise would continue during an adjustment period.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against a non-resident owner and his tenant son for breaching the corporation's smoke-free rules.

The tenant repeatedly smoked cigarettes and cannabis in the unit and on the balcony, causing a nuisance to other residents.

The owner failed to take reasonable steps to ensure his tenant's compliance.

As the respondents did not participate in the hearing, the Tribunal proceeded uncontested.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to permanently cease smoking on the premises and ordered the owner to take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance.

The respondents were ordered to pay $7,650 in costs jointly and severally.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal challenging the validity and enforcement of the corporation's harassment-related rules.

The respondent corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing it was vexatious or should be stayed pending a concurrent Superior Court application.

The Tribunal found that the corporation's enforcement actions were taken in respect of both the harassment rules and section 117(1) of the Condominium Act.

Under Ontario Regulation 179/17, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to nuisance or disruption if the dispute also involves section 117(1).

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction and declined to award costs to either party.

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 condominium corporation sought a compliance order against the respondent unit owner for breaching a prior settlement agreement.

The corporation alleged the respondent continued to store materials on the common elements, park in loading areas for unreasonable times, and dispose of business waste in the corporation's bins.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the respondent in breach of the agreement based on photographic and video evidence.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the settlement agreement and awarded $11,150 in costs to the corporation.

The applicant condominium owner filed a complaint against the respondent condominium corporation, alleging that a security light affixed to a neighbouring unit created a nuisance by illuminating her backyard and infiltrating her bedroom.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the continuous, bright illumination constituted an unreasonable nuisance under section 117(2)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to engage an electrical contractor to modify or replace the lighting to minimize spillage onto the applicant's property, and awarded the applicant $150 for Tribunal fees, while dismissing her claim for $20,000 in damages.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application alleging the respondent corporation failed to enforce a rule restricting visitor parking to visitors only.

Prior to the hearing, the corporation amended its rules to permit residents to park in visitor parking under certain circumstances.

As the rule in question was superseded, the Tribunal found it no longer had jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed the application without costs on consent of the parties.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a unit owner who persistently fed pigeons from her balcony.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions attracted an excessive number of birds, resulting in unreasonable noise and property damage from droppings.

This constituted a nuisance under section 117(2)(a) of the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease feeding the birds, clean her balcony, install a bird deterrent, and pay costs and damages.

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

The corporation provided some records with redactions and withheld others, citing exceptions under section 55(4) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and estimated fees for the remaining non-core records.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation's redactions regarding litigation and specific owners were proper.

The Tribunal also affirmed the corporation's right to charge reasonable fees for producing records, though it reduced some of the estimated fees as excessive.

The corporation was ordered to provide the remaining redacted records upon payment of the adjusted fees.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant condominium owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation failed to keep adequate records by failing to deliver, delivering late, or delivering inaccurate Periodic Information Certificates (PICs) and other certificates.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction and because the issues were minor.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the timing of delivery of information certificates under s. 26.3 of the Condominium Act, 1998, and that the alleged errors in the certificates were not significant enough to warrant a hearing.

Costs of $750 were awarded to the respondent.

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

The corporation provided some records but delayed providing core records for over three months without explanation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the delay constituted a refusal to provide records without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to pay a $250 penalty and reimburse the applicant's $200 Tribunal fees.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, alleged their neighbour created a nuisance due to dog waste odour and that the condominium corporation failed to enforce its rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found insufficient evidence of unreasonable odour but determined the neighbour's use of chemical cleaners on the shared privacy fence constituted a nuisance.

The Tribunal ordered the neighbour to move the litter box, cease allowing dogs to urinate on the fence, and stop spraying chemicals.

The Tribunal found the condominium corporation adequately investigated the complaints despite communication gaps.

The applicants were awarded $100 in damages and $200 in Tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent unit owner breached a prior settlement agreement.

The applicant claimed the respondent's guests stole food deliveries intended for other residents and that the respondent created unreasonable noise.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over the food delivery issue as it constituted an unreasonable interference with the common elements.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent breached the agreement regarding the food deliveries and ordered compliance, but dismissed the noise complaints due to insufficient objective evidence.

The applicant was awarded $125 for Tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation sought compliance orders against a tenant for creating a nuisance through cannabis and tobacco smoke, and against the unit owners for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the tenant's compliance.

The Tribunal found that the tenant breached the corporation's rules and the Condominium Act, and that the owners failed to take timely and decisive action to obtain compliance.

However, because the tenant had vacated the unit prior to the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal declined to issue compliance orders.

The owners were ordered to pay $2,560 in costs and damages to the corporation.

The applicant condominium owner submitted a request for records to obtain plumber's reports regarding a water leak that allegedly damaged her unit.

The respondent condominium corporation refused the request, citing section 55(4)(c) of the Condominium Act, 1998, on the basis that the records related to other specific units and owners.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation's refusal to provide the records with appropriate redactions was without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to provide the redacted records, reimburse the applicant's $200 Tribunal fee, and pay a $500 penalty.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation failed to enforce its declaration regarding visitor parking by allowing residents to park in common element spaces.

The applicant sought an order requiring the corporation to install visitor parking signage and enforce parking restrictions.

The Tribunal found that the corporation's board of directors had never formally designated the common element spaces as visitor parking, meaning the restriction limiting those spaces to visitors did not apply.

The Tribunal also found the corporation's complaint-based enforcement approach to be reasonable.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, challenged the respondent condominium corporation's implementation of new parking policies, which included charging rental fees for non-exclusive use spaces and requiring parking tags under threat of municipal ticketing.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation lacked the authority to lease the spaces without a special by-law and could not enforce the parking tag system without properly amending its rules in accordance with the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to cease both practices until its governing documents permit them and to reimburse the applicant for the parking rental fees she paid, along with her Tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application regarding the corporation's enforcement of boat mooring rules.

The Tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matter under Ontario Regulation 179/17, which requires the dispute to involve a unit, common element, or asset of the corporation.

The Tribunal found that the retaining wall used for mooring was owned by a third party and the corporation only had a contractual right to use it, not an ownership or leasehold interest.

Consequently, the mooring space was not a unit, common element, or asset of the corporation, and the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant unit owner brought a motion to add the owner of the waterfront property as an intervenor in an application alleging the condominium corporation failed to enforce its boat mooring policy.

The applicant argued the property owner could be directly affected by the tribunal's decision regarding the boundaries of the mooring space.

The tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that any compliance order regarding the allocation of mooring space would be directed solely to the condominium corporation, providing no basis to add the property owner as a party.