Megan Alexander

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against the respondent unit owner for causing noise nuisances and harassing other residents, contrary to s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation's rules.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent engaged in persistent unreasonable noise and harassment, including yelling profanities and threats in the common elements, even after signing a peace bond.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the Act and rules, and awarded the applicant $1,636.24 in damages and $10,150 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation refused to provide requested records without a reasonable excuse and sought a penalty.

The requested records related to significant repairs to another unit following a roof leak, a related legal settlement, and special assessments.

The Tribunal found that the respondent did not refuse the records without a reasonable excuse, as the requested documents either constituted requests for information rather than records, or were exempt from examination under s. 55(4)(c) of the Condominium Act because they related to specific units or owners.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The parties had two records cases before the Condominium Authority Tribunal, both in the negotiation stage.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the two cases merged pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules of Practice, as the issues were similar and the requested records overlapped.

The applicant in a condominium records dispute brought a motion to remove the respondent's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because another lawyer from the same firm had previously provided legal services to the respondent and might be called as a witness.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it premature as the case was still in the negotiation stage and no evidence of an actual conflict of interest was provided.

The Tribunal held that a reasonably fair-minded person would not disqualify counsel simply for being associated with another lawyer who previously acted for the respondent.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding unreasonable noise and vibration caused by the dropping of free weights in the condominium's gym, located on the same floor as his unit.

The respondent condominium corporation argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, characterizing the issue as one of maintenance and repair of the gym floor.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction, as the issue stemmed from the activity of dropping weights, which constituted a nuisance under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to complete planned flooring upgrades, conduct acoustical testing, and prohibit the use of free weights until noise levels met target criteria.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant owner's case for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that the use of free weights in the condominium gym caused unreasonable noise and vibration, constituting a nuisance.

The respondent argued the issue was about the maintenance and repair of the gym floor, which falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the noise complained of may be the result of an activity carried out by residents, and the potential need for a repair does not automatically remove the case from its jurisdiction.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the tenant respondents contravened a prior settlement agreement by allowing their dog to be unleashed on the common elements.

The Tribunal reviewed video evidence and found that the dog had been outside without a leash on several occasions, establishing a contravention.

However, the Tribunal concluded the incidents were accidental and did not warrant the removal of the dog or significant costs.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant respondents to abide by the settlement, ensure their leash is strong enough, exercise greater caution when opening their door, and pay $125 in Tribunal fees.