Natalia Polis

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

Shortly after the hearing began, the parties requested an adjournment to explore settlement.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that the dispute was settled and requested to withdraw the case on a without costs basis.

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

The applicant, a unit owner and licensed paralegal, requested the condominium corporation's most recent unaudited monthly financial statement.

The corporation initially refused to provide the record, mistakenly believing it was not obligated to do so because it was a non-core record.

The Tribunal found this refusal was without reasonable excuse and ordered a $500 penalty against the corporation.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to an unredacted copy of the record and lacked jurisdiction to order personal liability against the directors.

Due to the applicant's unreasonable conduct and escalating demands during the proceedings, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay $2,327.12 in costs to the corporation, while awarding the applicant $75 for Tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium owner challenged a chargeback of $892.70 levied by the respondent condominium corporation for legal fees and cleaning costs related to his guest's parking and nuisance violations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's guest had breached the corporation's rules by painting a vehicle in a visitor parking spot and causing disturbances.

The Tribunal held that the corporation acted reasonably in enforcing its governing documents and was entitled to the chargeback under its indemnification provisions.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the corporation.

The applicant condominium owner filed a Tribunal application alleging the respondent corporation refused to provide requested records, failed to keep adequate records, and charged unreasonable fees.

The corporation argued it had provided all entitled records and that the application was a vexatious 'fishing expedition' related to an ongoing locker dispute.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no records were improperly withheld and no fees were charged.

Finding the applicant had engaged in a pattern of vexatious conduct by repeatedly filing meritless applications for improper purposes, the Tribunal awarded $6,000 in costs to the corporation and ordered that the applicant must obtain permission before filing any future applications.

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

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing it was filed for an improper purpose to harass the corporation and its management.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was using the records jurisdiction to attempt to resolve underlying interpersonal disputes over which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for improper purpose and awarded the respondent $425 in costs on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant filed two concurrent applications regarding two enforcement letters and associated chargebacks.

The first application was resolved by a Consent Order.

The respondent moved to dismiss the second application, arguing the Consent Order resolved all costs related to the enforcement actions.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that allowing the second case to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent breached a previous settlement agreement.

During the hearing, the parties agreed to settle the issues on consent.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to pay the applicant $168.28 in costs.

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

The applicant agreed to pay a total of $3,746.89 to settle outstanding locker rental arrears, lien fees, and chargebacks.

The respondent agreed to discharge the lien registered on the applicant's unit upon receipt of payment.

The consent order also included terms regarding future communications, parking, and a mutual agreement not to seek additional legal or filing costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought an order directing the condominium corporation to resolve noise issues caused by an exit door near her unit.

She alleged the door's use created unreasonable noise constituting a nuisance under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal found that while the door was not quiet, the noise was not objectively unreasonable and was consistent with normal communal living.

The Tribunal also found the corporation had taken reasonable steps to address the complaints within the constraints of the Fire Code.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's case regarding a records request for unredacted election proxies and allegations of election manipulation.

The Tribunal granted the motion to dismiss, finding that it lacks jurisdiction over disputes related to condominium meetings and elections.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the request for unredacted proxy forms had no reasonable prospect of success, as such records are prescribed exemptions under the Condominium Act and its regulations.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal of their intention to withdraw the case, to which the respondents agreed.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal with prejudice, ordered the parties to bear their own costs, and closed the case.

The court found that York Region Condominium Corporation No. 664 had oppressed unit owner Joshua Frankel by breaching a settlement agreement to resolve a persistent noise issue in his unit.

The court held that the condominium’s failure to install the agreed-upon pumps, instead opting for a cheaper alternative that did not resolve the problem, constituted unfair disregard of Frankel’s interests under section 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court ordered the condominium to take all necessary measures to attenuate the noise and awarded Frankel $32,500 in compensation for the oppression, as well as $30,000 in costs.

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

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 condominium corporation sought an order prohibiting the respondent from smoking cannabis on his exclusive use balcony, relying on a recently adopted rule.

The respondents argued the rule was not properly adopted.

The Tribunal found that the rule was properly adopted, reasonable, and consistent with the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease smoking cannabis on the balcony and ordered the respondents to pay $554 in compensation for pre-litigation enforcement costs and $200 for Tribunal filing fees.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order directing the respondent unit owner to cease creating a nuisance through second-hand smoke.

The respondent, who had registered as a smoker under the condominium's rules, frequently smoked on her balcony, causing unreasonable odours to migrate to neighbouring units.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the smoke migration constituted an unreasonable nuisance under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent not to smoke on her balcony between March 1 and November 30 of each year and awarded the applicant $2,005 in costs and fees.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against a unit owner for failing to comply with its pet rules, which prohibit dogs weighing over 25 pounds.

The respondent did not participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had kept an oversized dog in her unit and allowed a visitor to bring an oversized dog onto the property.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the pet rules and awarded the applicant compensation for pre-litigation enforcement costs, partial indemnity legal costs, and the Tribunal filing fee.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

Prior to the scheduled video conference hearing, the applicant informed the Tribunal that she wished to withdraw her case.

The respondent had no objection to the withdrawal.

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

The applicant condominium owner submitted a request for records to obtain plumber's reports regarding a water leak that allegedly damaged her unit.

The respondent condominium corporation refused the request, citing section 55(4)(c) of the Condominium Act, 1998, on the basis that the records related to other specific units and owners.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation's refusal to provide the records with appropriate redactions was without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to provide the redacted records, reimburse the applicant's $200 Tribunal fee, and pay a $500 penalty.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought an application against the condominium corporation alleging failure to properly manage and enforce rules regarding visitor parking, outdoor common elements, and storage in parking spaces.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the corporation had made some efforts, it needed to implement better mechanisms to monitor and enforce visitor parking and storage rules.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request to destroy or seal a warning letter sent by the corporation's counsel, finding no jurisdiction or grounds to do so.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied, with the Tribunal ordering each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant unit owner sought an order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to provide a copy of the property management report presented at the annual general meeting.

The respondent argued that the manager delivered a verbal report using personal notes, which are not records of the corporation.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that personal notes not incorporated into the meeting minutes do not constitute corporate records.

The application was dismissed without costs.