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, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking to enforce a no-smoking rule against a neighbouring unit owner.

The Tribunal noted that the parties had previously litigated the same issue, resulting in prior Tribunal orders.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, finding that it lacked the legal authority to enforce its own orders and could not re-hear issues already decided.

The application was dismissed as an improper use of the Tribunal's process.