Matthew Varao

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order declaring that the respondent unit owner violated its smoke-free environment rule and sought payment of costs associated with enforcement.

The respondent and her sons had previously been granted legacy status exempting them from the rule.

The Tribunal found that the condominium corporation failed to properly investigate a nuisance complaint, unreasonably ignored the respondent's legacy status, and improperly registered a lien against the unit.

The application was dismissed, the legacy status was confirmed, and the condominium corporation was ordered to reverse all chargebacks and pay $2,000 in legal costs to the respondent.

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 filed two similar records cases against the respondent condominium corporation.

As both cases involved similar issues and one was in the early stages of the hearing process, the Tribunal proposed merging them in the interest of efficiency and fairness pursuant to Rule 18.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

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

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

The respondent initially failed to provide the records, prompting the applicant to file an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

During the proceedings, the respondent provided the records but the applicant challenged the scope of the redactions.

The Tribunal found that the redactions were appropriate and complied with the relevant regulation.

However, the Tribunal also determined that the respondent had initially refused to provide the records without a reasonable excuse.

Due to the shared cost nature of condominium penalties, no penalty was ordered, but the respondent was ordered to reimburse the applicant's $200 Tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium owner filed a case alleging the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding a records request.

The respondent acknowledged the breach, citing inadvertence during a change in property management.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the settlement agreement and reimburse the applicant's $125 filing fee.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty, finding it lacked jurisdiction to issue a penalty in a dispute solely about enforcing a settlement agreement.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought a Tribunal case against the respondent condominium corporation alleging it failed to provide requested records, improperly redacted meeting minutes, charged excessive fees, and failed to maintain adequate records.

The Tribunal found that while the corporation had a reasonable excuse for refusing some records, it improperly refused others, overly redacted certain minutes, and incorrectly charged a $150 redaction fee.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to reimburse the $150 fee, pay a $200 penalty for refusing records without a reasonable excuse, and pay $225 in Tribunal costs.

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 brought a case before the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement from a previous dispute.

The agreement required the respondent to provide unaudited financial statements and a $25 cheque for filing fees.

The Tribunal found the respondent inadvertently breached the agreement by omitting pages from the financial statements, but held the payment of the $25 in cash rather than by cheque was a de minimis breach.

The Tribunal declined to award a penalty, finding it lacked jurisdiction to do so when enforcing a settlement agreement, and awarded the applicant partial costs of $75.

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 condominium owner sought to add three additional issues to a dispute regarding a records request.

The proposed issues related to alleged false statements, non-compliance with a prior tribunal order, and breaches of confidentiality during mediation in a previous case.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal declined to add the issues, finding they related to a previously decided case and that enforcement of prior orders must be pursued in the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against the respondent unit owner for breaching governing documents relating to parking, storage, noise, and smoking.

The respondent failed to participate in the proceeding.

The Tribunal found the respondent in violation of the governing documents based on the applicant's uncontested evidence.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the rules and pay indemnification costs, Tribunal fees, and partial indemnity legal costs.