Mary Ann Spencer

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged that she was experiencing unreasonable noise from the unit above hers due to a lack of sound-dampening underlay.

She sought an order for the condominium corporation to inspect the flooring and for the respondents to install proper underlay if necessary.

The Tribunal found insufficient objective evidence to establish that the noise was unreasonable or exceeded normal day-to-day living sounds.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to cease harassing the tenant above.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

Before any testimony or submissions were received in Stage 3, the applicant requested to withdraw the case.

The respondent did not object.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed, with each party bearing their own costs.

The applicant, a condominium owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records, provided overly redacted records, and failed to keep adequate records.

The Tribunal found that the corporation did not refuse to provide records without reasonable excuse, as the redactions were appropriate to protect privacy and the missing records were due to an oversight or a previous management company's failure to transfer them.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the corporation was failing to keep adequate records.

The substantive claims were dismissed, but the corporation was ordered to pay $75 as partial reimbursement of the applicant's Tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the occupant of a unit to comply with a rule prohibiting the storage of garbage on common elements, and requiring the non-resident owners to take reasonable steps to obtain compliance.

The respondents did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the occupant willfully breached the rule and that the owners failed to take any steps to ensure compliance.

The Tribunal ordered immediate compliance by the occupant, directed the owners to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance, and awarded the corporation its legal and Tribunal costs on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant condominium owner submitted a request for records seeking copies of emails he had sent to the respondent condominium corporation.

The corporation could not readily produce the emails because the electronic file obtained from its former management company was not searchable.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation had not refused to provide the records without reasonable excuse, as it had made reasonable efforts to retrieve them and the applicant already possessed copies of the requested emails.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $500 in costs for pursuing the application for the improper purpose of sanctioning a former condominium manager.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

After disclosure was completed but before testimony or submissions were received, the applicant requested to withdraw the case.

The respondent did not object.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal, ordered the case closed, and directed that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant condominium owner alleged that the respondent, who lived in the unit above, was creating an unreasonable odour by using a charcoal-burning water pipe, in violation of the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules.

The respondent denied the allegations, stating that only his wife smoked cigarettes and only during the day.

The condominium corporation did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that the odour was unreasonable or that it originated from the respondent's unit.

However, the Tribunal ordered that if the applicant obtains an independent air quality report confirming unreasonable odour infiltration, the corporation must investigate and take reasonable steps to mitigate it.

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.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a compliance order against a tenant and the non-resident unit owner for repeated breaches of rules regarding noise, smoking, garbage storage, pets, and parking.

The tenant did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the tenant in breach of the smoking, storage, pet, and parking rules, and ordered immediate compliance.

The Tribunal also ordered the tenant to pay damages for pre-litigation legal costs, and apportioned the costs of the Tribunal proceeding equally between the tenant and the unit owner, finding the owner had taken some reasonable steps but was ultimately responsible for her tenant's actions.

The applicant, a townhouse owner, challenged the respondent condominium corporation's enforcement of parking restrictions on the common elements.

The corporation had ticketed owners for parking in 62 spaces marked for visitors, despite the declaration only designating 35 spaces for visitors.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the corporation's enforcement was inconsistent with its governing documents and ordered it to cease enforcement until the signage matched the declaration.

However, the Tribunal declined to reimburse the applicant for his parking tickets, finding he had parked unreasonably despite receiving notice of the enforcement.

The applicant was awarded $200 in costs for Tribunal fees.

The applicant unit owner alleged she was experiencing unreasonable odours from vaping by the occupant of an adjacent unit, in violation of the condominium corporation's non-smoking rules.

She sought an order compelling the corporation to enforce its rules.

The Tribunal found that the evidence, including air quality testing results, did not establish the presence of unreasonable odours or that the adjacent occupant was vaping.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding responses to records requests and public disparagement.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation breached the agreement by failing to provide required statements explaining redactions and actual costs for a records request.

However, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the applicant's claims regarding public disparagement and harassment under the settlement agreement.

The corporation was ordered to provide the missing statements, and no costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order for the permanent removal of the respondent's dog due to recurring urination on the common elements.

The parties reached an agreement during mediation on the conditions under which the dog could remain, but could not agree on the amount required to discharge a lien placed on the respondent's unit for unpaid carpet cleaning bills and legal fees.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was only responsible for one cleaning bill and the legal fees to register the lien, reducing the lien amount to $1,898.35.

The Tribunal ordered no costs, finding both parties bore some responsibility for the escalation of the dispute.

The applicant unit owner submitted a request for condominium records, specifically board meeting minutes.

The respondent condominium corporation failed to respond within the required 30 days and refused to provide the records, citing suspicions about the requester's identity and demanding proof of authorization.

The Tribunal found that the owner made the request and the corporation's failure to verify her identity in a timely manner constituted a refusal without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to provide the records at no cost, pay a $1,000 penalty, and reimburse the applicant's $200 Tribunal filing fee.

The applicant condominium owner brought an application regarding unreasonable noise from a garage grate and noise/exhaust from an emergency generator vent.

The respondent condominium corporations brought a preliminary motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the issues related to the repair and maintenance of common elements under sections 89 and 90 of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over the garage grate issue as it was clearly a repair and maintenance matter.

However, the Tribunal found it was not clear that the generator vent issue was solely a repair and maintenance matter, and ordered that evidence would be heard on that issue.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring a unit owner and her tenant to comply with the corporation's rules respecting noise.

The corporation received numerous complaints about yelling, screaming, and banging emanating from the unit.

Neither the owner nor the tenant participated in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the tenant's conduct constituted a nuisance and violated section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal also found that the owner failed to take reasonable steps to ensure her tenant's compliance, violating section 119(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to cease the disruptive behavior, ordered the owner to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance, and awarded costs of $7,400.81 against them jointly and severally.

The applicants and the respondent condominium corporation reached a settlement regarding excessive noise emanating from the condominium's fitness room.

The parties requested that their agreement be incorporated into a Consent Order.

The Tribunal issued the Consent Order, which required the respondent to provide an acoustic testing report, change fitness room hours, remove certain equipment, implement noise-dampening modifications, and adopt a noise enforcement policy.

The respondent was also ordered to pay $400 in costs to the applicants.

The applicant unit owner brought an application before the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that upgraded telecommunications antennae on the condominium's roof constituted a nuisance, annoyance, and disruption.

The applicant argued that the antennae unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of her penthouse unit and balcony, primarily due to their appearance and a speculative reduction in property value.

The Tribunal found that the antennae did not create noise or vibration, nor did they physically impede the use of the balcony.

Relying on established jurisprudence, the Tribunal held that a partially obstructed view over the roofline and speculative future loss of resale value do not constitute an unreasonable interference or nuisance.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order for the permanent removal of the respondent owner's dog, alleging violations of its pet rules regarding weight limits, registration, and muzzling on common elements.

The respondent did not participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent blatantly disregarded the rules requiring pets to be registered and dogs to be muzzled on common elements.

The Tribunal ordered the permanent removal of the dog and awarded the applicant $450 in damages and $3,500 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that she experienced unreasonable noise from the unit above hers following a renovation and that the condominium corporation failed to enforce its flooring rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal reviewed acoustical testing reports and noise logs, concluding that the evidence did not establish the noise was unreasonable or constituted a nuisance.

The Tribunal also found that the condominium corporation acted reasonably in investigating the complaints and working with the upstairs owner to mitigate potential noise sources, thereby complying with its rules.

The application was dismissed without costs.