Michael Spears

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal challenging the validity and enforcement of the corporation's harassment-related rules.

The respondent corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing it was vexatious or should be stayed pending a concurrent Superior Court application.

The Tribunal found that the corporation's enforcement actions were taken in respect of both the harassment rules and section 117(1) of the Condominium Act.

Under Ontario Regulation 179/17, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to nuisance or disruption if the dispute also involves section 117(1).

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction and declined to award costs to either party.

Following the dismissal of the underlying condominium dispute, the respondent brought a motion under Rule 47 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice to reopen the case solely to seek costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that reopening the matter at this juncture solely to address costs was not warranted, as the circumstances leading to the dismissal had already been addressed.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request.

The matter proceeded to mediation, where the mediator determined the case was filed for an improper purpose, noting the applicant's persistent focus on governance issues, defamatory allegations against the board, and continued harassment of board members.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

After reviewing submissions, the Tribunal found the application was initiated in bad faith and for an improper purpose, as the applicant sought to use the records request process to advance grievances against the board rather than to obtain records.

The application was dismissed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice and section 1.41(1) of the Condominium Act.

The respondents in several human rights complaints regarding 'adults only' condominium policies brought preliminary motions challenging the Board of Inquiry's jurisdiction and the naming of individual directors as parties.

The Board held that it has jurisdiction under section 52(1) of the Charter to determine whether the Code's definition of age violates equality rights.

The Board also declined to remove the individual directors as respondents, noting they could be found personally liable for causing the corporations to discriminate, but removed the 'Board of Directors' as it is not a legal entity.