Michelle Kelly

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owners to comply with its rules regarding visitor parking and smoking.

The tribunal found that the respondents had contravened the rules by repeatedly parking their vehicles in visitor parking spaces.

However, the tribunal dismissed the claim regarding smoking, finding insufficient evidence that the smoke caused an unreasonable nuisance, annoyance, or disruption as required by the Condominium Act.

The tribunal ordered the respondents to cease parking in visitor spaces and to pay damages and costs to the corporation.

The applicant alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding visitor parking rules.

The applicant claimed the corporation failed to provide required written notice to owners, proposed a new rule that contradicted the settlement, and delayed reimbursing owners for cancelled parking tickets.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation's notice satisfied the settlement terms and the proposed rule did not contravene the agreement.

While the reimbursements were delayed, the Tribunal found this breach to be minor and moot.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium corporation and the respondent landlord and tenant reached a settlement during Stage 2 mediation regarding noise and nuisance complaints.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order formalizing the agreement.

The order requires the tenant to adjust business hours, comply with noise restrictions, and follow a structured complaint resolution process, while the landlord must provide a lease summary and governing documents.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that cigarette smoke and odour from the neighbouring respondent's unit constituted a nuisance under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and that the condominium corporation failed to enforce its rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the smoke odour from the respondent's unit was unreasonable and substantially interfered with the applicant's enjoyment of her unit.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to permanently cease smoking in his unit.

The Tribunal also found that the condominium corporation had taken reasonable steps to investigate and address the complaints, fulfilling its obligations under the Act.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to remove two dogs from his unit, alleging they caused unreasonable noise and exhibited aggressive behaviour.

The respondent claimed the dogs were emotional support animals but failed to provide requested medical documentation and did not participate in the tribunal proceedings.

The tribunal found the dogs constituted a nuisance under the condominium's governing documents and the Condominium Act, 1998.

The tribunal ordered the removal of the dogs and directed the respondent to pay a portion of the applicant's pre-application legal costs and tribunal filing fees.

The applicant condominium owner challenged chargebacks levied by the respondent condominium corporation for repairs to a garage door, legal fees, and administrative charges arising from alleged parking rule violations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant violated the parking rules by permitting a frequent guest to park an oversized, leaking truck that obstructed access and damaged the garage door.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to comply with the parking rules and to pay $4,622.49 in compensation for the garage door repairs, reasonable legal fees, and administrative charges.

No costs were awarded for the Tribunal proceeding.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application disputing chargebacks levied by the respondent condominium corporation for improper garbage and recycling disposal.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that disputes over garbage disposal rules do not fall within the prescribed disputes over which the Tribunal has authority under O. Reg. 179/17.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application regarding a noise complaint against a unit owner and the unit's occupant.

During Stage 2 mediation, the parties agreed to settle the case.

The occupant agreed to permanently vacate the unit, the condominium corporation agreed to grant fob access to the owner, and the owner agreed to pay $1,800 as a partial payment of costs.

The Tribunal issued a consent order reflecting these terms and closed the case.

The applicant, a condominium owner, sought an order requiring his neighbour to replace or modify an outdoor light fixture that shone into his unit.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the light's wattage had been reduced, the fixture's clear glass sides violated the condominium corporation's declaration requiring exterior lighting to be subtle and diffused.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to modify or replace the fixture to comply with the declaration.

The applicant's request for costs was denied due to his harassing behaviour toward the respondent during the proceedings.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owners to permanently remove their dog from their unit due to ongoing violations of the corporation's rules and declaration.

The respondents failed to participate in the default proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the respondents allowed their dog to roam the common elements off-leash, relieve itself on common elements, and cause noise disturbances.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to remove the dog within 15 days and to pay the applicant's pre-hearing costs, Tribunal fees, and legal costs.

Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 519 (CCC 519) brought an application seeking to compel Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 656 (OCC 656) and Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 522 (CCC 522) to share the costs of replacing a critical electric switchgear (ESG) located on CCC 519's property but serving all three condominiums.

CCC 522 agreed to contribute, but OCC 656 refused, arguing its declaration did not require it and CCC 519 was responsible for its common areas.

The court applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment, finding OCC 656 had been incontrovertibly benefited and failed to establish a juristic reason for retaining the benefit without contributing.

The court rejected the argument that the absence of a cost-sharing agreement constituted a juristic reason.

The application was granted, requiring both respondents to share costs equitably, with a reference directed for cost apportionment if necessary.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 3.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that the issues in dispute had been resolved and requested to withdraw the case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 43.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant unit owner sought an oppression remedy and $50,000 in damages against the respondent condominium corporation and its volunteer directors, alleging they oppressively delayed replacing his drafty bedroom window for 13 years.

The court dismissed the application, finding the corporation acted reasonably, followed its window replacement policy, and did not breach its duty to repair.

The court also held that suing the directors personally was vexatious, as there were no allegations of bad faith or personal benefit to support personal liability.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application for a compliance order against the respondent unit owners, who continued to smoke on their balcony in violation of a newly passed rule prohibiting smoking on exclusive use balconies.

The respondents argued that they owned a portion of the balcony exclusively, that the rule was improperly passed, and that the rule was unreasonable or should have included a grandparenting clause.

The court found that the entire balcony was an exclusive use common element, the rule was properly passed, and the rule was reasonable given the context of second-hand smoke and nuisance.

The court granted the application and ordered the respondents to cease smoking on their balcony immediately.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff’s oppression-style claim against a condominium corporation was dismissed, the court determined costs.

The defendant condominium corporation sought full indemnity costs, arguing that condominium litigation typically warrants such recovery and that the plaintiff made serious but unproven allegations of dishonesty.

The court held that the enhanced full-indemnity regime under s.134 of the Condominium Act applies only to compliance order proceedings and not to an oppression claim under s.135.

Nevertheless, the court found that the plaintiff’s unsubstantiated allegations of deceit and dishonesty against the corporation and its directors justified elevated costs.

Costs of the action and trial were therefore awarded on a substantial indemnity basis, with quantification referred to assessment if the parties could not agree.

A condominium unit owner challenged the condominium corporation’s decision to replace garage roof decks and impose special assessments to fund the work, alleging the project constituted a substantial alteration to common elements requiring approval under s.97(4) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and seeking oppression remedies under s.135.

The court held the work constituted repair and maintenance of common elements within s.97(1), undertaken using materials reasonably close in quality to the original in accordance with modern construction standards.

As such, the project was not a substantial alteration requiring owner approval.

The evidence also failed to establish oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly disregarding conduct by the corporation.

The corporation was entitled to levy special assessments and enforce payment through a lien.