Nicole Aylwin

The applicant condominium owner filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking email correspondence related to a letter sent by the respondent corporation.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as the requested emails related to contemplated litigation, given the applicant's repeated threats to sue the corporation for libel and slander over the letter.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was clearly contemplating litigation at the time of the records request and sought the emails to support his claims.

As records related to contemplated litigation are exempt from examination under s. 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998, the Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1(b) for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a request for records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The Tribunal determined that the applicant was actually seeking information about how a decision was made, rather than requesting existing records.

As the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998 is limited to disputes over records and does not extend to requests for information, the application was dismissed pursuant to Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium owner and the respondent condominium corporation reached a settlement regarding a records request dispute.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order resolving the matter.

The corporation acknowledged its failure to respond within the statutory 30-day timeframe and agreed to provide the requested records, including meeting minutes and financial statements, free of charge.

The corporation was also ordered to reimburse the applicant's filing fees and pay a penalty.

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 alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to address unreasonable noise from other units, contrary to s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Near the end of the hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw the case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal with prejudice under Rule 43.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, noting the respondent had no objection.

The case was closed and the applicant is barred from refiling on these issues.

The applicant condominium owner submitted requests for records, including board meeting minutes, to the respondent condominium corporation.

The applicant alleged the corporation refused to provide records, failed to keep adequate records, and improperly redacted minutes, seeking a penalty and costs.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation provided all available records, had a reasonable excuse for missing historical minutes, and resolved redaction issues during mediation.

The application was dismissed with no penalty or costs awarded.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, brought an application against their condominium corporation, a unit owner, and the unit's tenants, alleging nuisance conduct including noise, smoke, and two specific incidents involving physical altercations, threats, and racial slurs.

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claims regarding the two specific incidents.

The Tribunal found that the alleged conduct in those incidents involved activities likely to cause injury or illness, which falls under section 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

As the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over section 117(1) claims, the allegations related to the two specific incidents were dismissed, while the remaining nuisance claims were allowed to proceed.

The applicant, a condominium resident, alleged that the respondent, a former board president, breached the condominium's anti-harassment rule through three incidents, including an altercation at a meet-and-greet, calling the police about a medical blister pack, and swearing in an elevator.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the matter as the alleged conduct could constitute a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that the conduct occurred as alleged or amounted to a nuisance at law.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied.

The applicant condominium corporation alleged that the respondent unit owner breached its harassment rule by making disparaging LinkedIn posts about residents, board members, management, and legal counsel.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over posts concerning legal counsel, as they are not individuals in a unit or common elements.

Regarding posts about residents and management, the Tribunal found the conduct, while inappropriate and annoying, did not meet the legal threshold of a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption.

The application was dismissed with no costs.

The applicant unit owner and the respondent condominium corporation agreed to settle a dispute regarding the enforcement of a no-smoking rule against another unit owner.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the corporation to provide a summary of past enforcement steps and to file a Tribunal application against the non-compliant unit owner.

The applicant withdrew her claims against the non-compliant unit owner without prejudice.

The applicant submitted two applications to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding HVAC repair and maintenance issues and a chargeback for a smoke alarm replacement.

The Tribunal proposed to dismiss the applications as being outside its jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found that the disputes related to provisions of a reciprocal agreement and unit boundaries, rather than provisions governing nuisances or other matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction under O. Reg. 179/17.

Both applications were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owners and resident to comply with its non-smoking rule and s. 117(2)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998, following repeated complaints of cannabis smoke and odour.

Despite multiple warnings and legal compliance letters, the nuisance continued.

The respondents did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondents in breach of the governing documents and the Act, ordered them to immediately cease smoking on the premises, and awarded the applicant $3,876.87 in pre-litigation enforcement damages and $1,395.03 in legal costs.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's case, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the case had no reasonable prospect of success, and the application was vexatious.

The respondent also sought an order deeming the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found that the core of the complaint related to compliance with the corporation's harassment rule, which falls within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also held that the application was not clearly without merit or filed for an improper purpose.

The motion to dismiss and the request to deem the applicant a vexatious litigant were denied.

The applicant, owner of a commercial condominium unit operating as a restaurant, challenged the respondent condominium corporation's chargebacks for legal fees related to alleged odour nuisances.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant did allow the creation of an odour nuisance contrary to the Condominium Act, the respondent did not act reasonably or in good faith in its enforcement efforts.

The respondent withheld an HVAC inspection report that proposed solutions and instead aggressively pursued legal action and threatened liens.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to refund the $4,191.34 in chargebacks to the applicant and declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation failed to enforce its parking rules by allowing owners and visitors to park on the roadway.

The respondent argued that its board had discretion to determine how to enforce the rules and had acted reasonably.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had acted reasonably and not capriciously in its enforcement practices, which included issuing reminders and notices rather than hiring private parking enforcement.

The application was dismissed, though the Tribunal ordered the respondent to issue a notice to all owners reminding them of the parking rules and enforcement steps.

No costs or damages were awarded.

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 applicant, a unit owner, requested a copy of the new condominium management contract and bid quotations from the respondent condominium corporation.

The corporation delayed providing the records until the mediation stage of the Tribunal process, citing the need to protect the integrity of the procurement process.

The Tribunal found that the delay amounted to a refusal without a reasonable excuse, as the procurement process was already complete when the request was made.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to pay a $125 penalty and $200 in costs for the applicant's filing fees.

The applicant condominium owner sought an order requiring her neighbour, the respondent, to cease making unreasonable noise, described as loud thumping and pounding.

The respondent denied making the noise and provided video evidence with decibel readings to demonstrate her unit was not the source.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found insufficient objective evidence to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was creating or permitting the noise.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against the unit owners and their tenant to seek compliance with its rules respecting smoking.

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

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the tenant to abide by the smoking rules, the owners to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance, and the respondents to reimburse the applicant $150 for filing fees.

The applicant unit owner sought a $5,000 penalty and costs against the respondent condominium corporation for failing to provide requested core records in a timely manner.

The Tribunal found that the corporation's delay, attributed to a change in management, amounted to a refusal without a reasonable excuse.

However, the Tribunal declined to award a penalty or costs, noting the applicant's history of using records requests to inappropriately address governance disputes and penalize the board.

Instead, the Tribunal ordered the corporation to distribute a copy of the decision to all unit owners to inform them of the board's failure to meet its statutory obligations.