Nasser Chahbar

The applicant unit owner submitted a records request to the respondent condominium corporation.

Although initially approved without fees, the corporation later demanded fees for non-core records after a change in legal counsel and board policy, causing significant delay.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found this delay amounted to an unreasonable refusal and assessed a $300 penalty against the corporation.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims that the records ultimately provided—including board minutes, hallway project specifications, and AGM voting results—were inadequate under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The corporation was ordered to reimburse half of the applicant's Tribunal filing fees.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a records request to the respondent condominium corporation.

After receiving no response for over five months, the applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The respondent eventually provided the records during the hearing process.

The Tribunal found that the delay amounted to a refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse and ordered the respondent to pay an $800 penalty and reimburse the applicant's $150 Tribunal fees.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal disputing a $15 fee charged by the respondent condominium corporation to produce requested records, and seeking a penalty for the respondent's alleged failure to provide tax-related records.

The Tribunal found the $15 fee to be reasonable and dismissed the fee dispute as disproportionately minor.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the respondent was withholding tax records, concluding that the requested tax records did not exist.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant unit owner requested records from the respondent condominium corporation regarding a special assessment for underground parking garage repairs.

The corporation failed to provide the revised special assessment and a written opinion from a unit owner.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation refused to provide the revised special assessment without a reasonable excuse and ordered its production along with a $200 penalty.

The Tribunal held that the unit owner's written opinion was not a record the corporation was required to maintain under the Condominium Act.

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 filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to the mediation stage.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against the respondent unit owners regarding smoke odours allegedly causing a nuisance.

At the Stage 3 hearing, the respondents clarified that they are co-owners and that a tenant currently resides in the unit.

Because the tenant was not named as a party, the Tribunal dismissed the application and directed the applicant to refile the application naming the tenant, with filing fees waived.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against a tenant and the unit owner (as intervenor) regarding repeated noise complaints, including loud social gatherings and music late at night.

Neither the tenant nor the owner participated in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the tenant's actions contravened section 117(2)(a) of the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to cease making unreasonable noise, ordered the owner to ensure the tenant's compliance, and ordered the owner to pay the corporation's Tribunal fees.

The applicant unit owner and respondent condominium corporation resolved their dispute regarding a records request during Stage 2 mediation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order formalizing their agreement, which required the corporation to provide redacted in-camera board minutes, a utility service contract, and a list of investigated hydro companies, along with $275 in costs and compensation.

The applicant sought a list of all owners from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 Mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide the requested owner list and reimburse the applicant $300 in costs.

The applicant, a unit owner, submitted a request for records to the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to respond using the mandatory form or provide the records in a timely manner, prompting the applicant to file a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

During the Tribunal process, the respondent acknowledged its non-compliance with the Condominium Act, 1998, provided some of the outstanding records, and reimbursed the applicant's filing fees.

The parties agreed to resolve the dispute, and the Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to comply with its record-keeping and disclosure obligations under the Act.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records and that some provided records were inadequate.

The requested records included water bills, budgets, meeting minutes, and records of owners and leased units.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had provided all requested records and that the records were adequate under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal concluded there was no refusal without a reasonable excuse and dismissed the application without costs.

The applicant unit owner sought records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 Mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

By consent, the tribunal ordered the respondent to provide redacted legal invoices showing only the total amounts, and to reimburse the applicant's $75.00 tribunal filing fee.

No penalty or further costs were awarded.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a records request for board meeting minutes and the reserve fund plan.

The respondent condominium corporation provided the minutes two days late and without the mandatory form, and stated the reserve fund plan was not yet approved.

The applicant alleged the minutes were inadequate because they omitted decisions regarding a new property manager and reserve fund study.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent did not refuse the records without a reasonable excuse and that the provided minutes met the standard of adequacy.

The application was dismissed with no order for costs.

The applicant brought a dispute regarding noise from HVAC units in the condominium's games and party rooms.

During Stage 2 Mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to install compressor blankets, restrict the operating hours of the HVAC units, and lock the room temperatures at specified levels depending on the season.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to the mediation stage.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal challenging a rule that closed the indoor pool from September to May, arguing it caused a nuisance.

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

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that a rule setting a seasonal schedule for a pool does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction over provisions governing nuisances, annoyances, or disruptions.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

After the case proceeded to mediation, the applicant decided to proceed to a hearing but failed to pay the required fee or communicate any intention to continue.

The Tribunal found the case to be abandoned and ordered it dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

After the case proceeded to mediation, the applicant decided to proceed to a tribunal decision but failed to pay the required fee or communicate any intention to continue.

The Tribunal found the case abandoned under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice and ordered it dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation and the respondent unit owner reached a settlement during Stage 2 mediation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The parties agreed to a consent order requiring the respondent's tenant to vacate the unit by September 30, 2023, and to comply with the condominium's declaration and rules in the interim.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, with each party bearing their own costs.