Nasrudin Mumin

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to disqualify the applicant's proposed representative, a friend and fellow unit owner who had his own similar active case against the corporation.

The respondent argued the representation violated Rule 9.1(b) regarding indirect gains and Rule 9.6 regarding abuse of process.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no evidence the representative would receive a direct or indirect gain, and concluding that representation by someone who previously litigated similar issues against the same respondent does not constitute an abuse of process.

The applicant, a condominium owner, filed a request for core records which the respondent condominium corporation ignored until after the applicant commenced a Tribunal proceeding.

The corporation eventually provided the existing records but revealed that no board meetings had been held for a year, with decisions instead made by email.

The Tribunal found that emails are not adequate records of board decisions and directed the corporation to provide minutes once the email decisions were retroactively approved at a proper meeting.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to pay a $2,000 penalty for its initial unexcused refusal to provide the records, plus $150 in costs.

The applicant sought access to various condominium records, including board meeting minutes and an engineering consultant's report related to shared hydro facilities and litigation.

The parties reached a settlement through the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent corporation to provide the requested records, subject to specific redactions for solicitor-client privilege and unrelated exempt information, upon the applicant's payment of $288.15 for the non-core records.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The matter proceeded to mediation, after which the applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3.

The applicant failed to pay the required fee within 15 days.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the case closed in Stage 2 pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant brought a case before the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request.

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

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to provide specific records, including service provider changes and board meeting minutes, and to pay $75 for Tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to remove two unneutered cats from a unit owned by the respondent owner and occupied by the respondent resident.

The applicant alleged the cats caused an unreasonable odour from spraying urine and soiled the common elements.

The respondents did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the odour constituted a nuisance in contravention of section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the condominium rules.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the cats and awarded the applicant $904 in pre-application enforcement costs plus $150 in Tribunal fees.