Maureen Carter-Whitney

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought applications alleging that the condominium corporation failed to consistently enforce its pet and parking rules and failed to provide a requested record (a grounds map).

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the board acted reasonably and within its discretion in enforcing the outdated rules while in the process of updating them.

The Tribunal also found that the corporation did not refuse to provide the requested record, as it provided the map as soon as it was located.

The applications were dismissed, and no costs or penalties were awarded.

In a condominium dispute, the respondent requested to provide late evidence and submitted highly sensitive personal information in support of the request.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal considered the open court principle and the exception established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sherman Estate v. Donovan.

Finding that the dissemination of the information could constitute an affront to the respondent's dignity, the Tribunal ordered that the exhibits containing the personal information be deemed confidential and excluded from the public record.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to enforce its pet rules against the respondent unit owner, alleging her two large dogs barked excessively, were off-leash on common elements, and their excrement was not cleaned up.

The Tribunal found the respondent in breach of the condominium's declaration and rules based on credible evidence from neighbours.

The Tribunal ordered the permanent removal of the dogs from the unit within 30 days and awarded the condominium corporation $8,273.56 in costs, including pre-litigation enforcement costs and a portion of the Tribunal proceeding costs.

The applicant initiated three separate cases against the respondent condominium corporation regarding parking rules, pet rules, and a related records request.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal sought submissions on whether to merge the cases to be heard together at Stage 3.

While the applicant consented to merging two of the cases, he opposed merging the records request case.

The Tribunal found that because the records request related to the subject matter of the pet rules case, merging all three cases would provide the most fair, focused, and efficient process without prejudicing either party.

The Tribunal ordered the three cases to be heard together pursuant to Rule 16.2 of the CAT Rules of Practice.