Michael H. Clifton

The applicant, a non-resident owner of two non-residential units, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal challenging a by-law that prohibited her from accessing the condominium's rooftop amenity.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the case had no reasonable prospect of success, the issue was minor, and the application was an abuse of process as a nearly identical case had been previously dismissed.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice, and the Tribunal dismissed the case.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal, which proceeded to Stage 2 mediation.

The applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to take any further steps or pay the required fee for over 15 days.

Pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, the tribunal ordered the case closed in Stage 2.

The applicant unit owner requested various condominium records, including historical meeting minutes and breakdowns of an extra occupancy assessment.

The respondent condominium corporation provided some records but refused others, stating they did not exist.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the corporation had a statutory duty to retain meeting minutes indefinitely, it could not be ordered to produce records that do not exist.

The Tribunal concluded the refusal was not unreasonable under the circumstances and dismissed the application without costs.

The applicant condominium owner sought an order regarding his eligibility to use an accessible parking space.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the case, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the dispute related to section 117 of the Condominium Act, and that the application was an abuse of process due to multiple other legal proceedings commenced by the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the central issue of parking eligibility was not sufficiently connected to section 117 to oust its jurisdiction, and that the Tribunal was the appropriate forum to resolve the parking dispute despite the other ongoing litigation.

The applicant unit owner requested various core and non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent agreed to provide the non-core records but insisted on charging estimated legal fees for reviewing and redacting them, arguing it had a duty to do so under PIPEDA and the Condominium Act.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal held that PIPEDA does not apply to statutory records requests under the Condominium Act, and there is no general duty to submit every requested record to formal legal review for redaction.

The Tribunal found the estimated fees unreasonable, ordered the respondent to provide the records at no charge, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant initiated a case at the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding the respondent condominium corporation's records of director appointments.

The parties agreed to settle the dispute and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the board of directors to ratify the appointments, amend meeting minutes, and provide the updated records to the applicant.

The respondent condominium corporation requested a review and reopening of a previous motion decision under Rules 31.1 and 31.2 of the CAT Rules of Practice.

The tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent had not failed to appear, participate, or respond to communications, which are the only conditions under which a review may be considered.

The tribunal noted that the respondent's prior email submissions constituted active participation in the process.