Nicole Aylwin

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application, arguing it was an abuse of process because the applicant had filed a concurrent application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) regarding the same parking enforcement issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while there was some factual overlap, the issues were not identical, as the HRTO application focused on discrimination and harassment while the CAT application focused strictly on the enforcement of the condominium's parking provisions.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the CAT application to proceed would not cause substantial prejudice to the respondent and would provide a timely resolution to the parking enforcement issue, over which the CAT has exclusive jurisdiction.

The parties agreed to settle a condominium dispute regarding nuisance, parking, and storage rules through the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the tenant to comply with the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules, and requiring the owner to take reasonable steps to ensure the tenant's compliance.

The tenant agreed to pay $5,000 in costs to the corporation.

The applicant unit owner sought an order from the Condominium Authority Tribunal directing the respondent condominium corporation to provide board meeting minutes and a specific by-law, and requested a penalty for the corporation's refusal to provide them.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was not entitled to draft minutes, the corporation's nearly year-long delay in approving minutes constituted a refusal without a reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty, finding the corporation did not willfully disregard its obligations, but ordered the corporation to provide the approved minutes within a set timeframe and awarded the applicant $200 in costs.

The applicant unit owner brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation, alleging it unreasonably enforced pet rules and attempted to enforce non-existent rules regarding her dog.

The respondent had sent two compliance letters after receiving complaints about the dog urinating on common elements, barking, and wandering onto other owners' exclusive use areas.

The Tribunal found that the respondent acted reasonably in investigating the complaints and sending the letters, and did not attempt to enforce non-existent rules.

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

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal after the respondent condominium corporation refused to authorize the installation of a pergola on her exclusive use patio.

The applicant argued the respondent was unreasonably enforcing its rules and that the dispute fell within the Tribunal's jurisdiction over nuisance-related provisions.

The Tribunal found that the governing documents relied upon by the respondent did not govern nuisances, annoyances, or disruptions, but rather permitted the board to prohibit installations on common elements generally.

Concluding it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant condominium owner alleged that the respondent unit owner's tenants created a nuisance through smoke, odour, and noise, and violated parking rules.

The applicant also claimed the condominium corporation failed to enforce its governing documents.

The Tribunal found that the respondent unit owner failed to ensure his tenants complied with noise and parking rules, but the evidence did not establish that the smoke and odour constituted a nuisance.

The Tribunal also found that the condominium corporation took all reasonable steps to address the complaints.

The applicant was awarded $200 in costs against the respondent unit owner, but the claim for damages was dismissed.

The applicant condominium owner requested board meeting minutes for April 2024.

The respondent condominium corporation replied that no meeting was held in April 2024 and therefore no minutes existed.

The applicant argued the board must have met to discuss the upcoming AGM and sought a penalty for the respondent's failure to provide the records and for a four-day delay in responding.

The Tribunal found that the board did not meet in April 2024, constituting a reasonable excuse for not providing the records.

The Tribunal dismissed the application and declined to award a penalty or costs.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation provided inadequate Periodic Information Certificates (PICs) and financial statements in response to a records request.

The applicant argued the records contained financial inaccuracies and failed to use mandatory statutory forms.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the records provided all required information and that the applicant's complaints primarily concerned the corporation's financial governance rather than the adequacy of the records themselves.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation refused to provide requested records without a reasonable excuse and sought a penalty.

The requested records related to significant repairs to another unit following a roof leak, a related legal settlement, and special assessments.

The Tribunal found that the respondent did not refuse the records without a reasonable excuse, as the requested documents either constituted requests for information rather than records, or were exempt from examination under s. 55(4)(c) of the Condominium Act because they related to specific units or owners.

The application was dismissed without costs.

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

The respondent did not join the case, and it proceeded as a default case.

Before any documents or evidence were disclosed, the applicant informed the Tribunal that the issue had been resolved and requested to withdraw the case.

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

The applicant condominium corporation and respondent unit owners reached a settlement in Stage 2 Mediation regarding noise complaints.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondents to comply with the corporation's governing documents regarding unreasonable noise.

The order established a specific procedure for substantiating future noise complaints, including requirements for multiple independent complaints, audio/video recordings, or real-time observation by corporation representatives.

The corporation also agreed to propose an acoustical test to the primary complainants at its own expense.

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 and his tenants to comply with noise and nuisance rules.

The corporation alleged the tenants created unreasonable noise in their unit and engaged in disruptive conduct on the common elements.

The Tribunal found that the tenants' noise in the unit constituted a nuisance contrary to section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, but their conduct on the common elements did not.

The Tribunal further held that the unit owner failed to take reasonable steps to ensure his tenants' compliance under section 119(2) of the Act.

The owner was ordered to take specific enforcement steps and pay $4,700 in costs.

The applicant condominium owner sought an order prohibiting the respondent from smoking on her porch, alleging the migrating smoke constituted a nuisance.

The respondent brought preliminary motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for a confidentiality order, both of which were denied.

The Tribunal found that the condominium rules did not prohibit smoking and that the frequency and amount of smoke migrating into the applicant's unit when his windows were open did not amount to a substantial and unreasonable interference.

The Tribunal also found that the condominium corporation took reasonable steps to investigate and address the complaints.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order directing the respondent unit owner to remove a dog from his unit, as the governing documents prohibit pets.

The respondent claimed the dog was an emotional support animal required for a disability.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had a disability and was entitled to keep his dog as an accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal found the respondent breached the rules by temporarily bringing a second dog onto the property.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with certain conditions regarding his dog and awarded the applicant $3,000 in costs due to the respondent's conduct causing delays in the proceeding.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to merge two Condominium Authority Tribunal cases filed by the applicant.

Both cases involved allegations regarding the adequacy of condominium records and the respondent's handling of records requests.

The Tribunal found that the issues were intertwined and that merging the cases would be fair, focused, and efficient, with no resulting delay or prejudice.

The motion to merge the cases was granted.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Merge Cases after the respondent filed a new application that appeared to be a counterclaim to the applicant's existing case regarding the enforcement of pet rules and human rights accommodations.

The applicant opposed the merger, arguing the new application should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the issues were intertwined, the parties were the same, and merging the cases would be more efficient and would not cause significant delay or prejudice.

The Tribunal ordered the cases merged pursuant to section 1.37(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to permanently remove his cat from the premises for breaching pet provisions.

The respondent repeatedly allowed his cat to roam freely in the hallways and on other owners' balconies, which are common elements.

Despite multiple warnings and formal letters of compliance, the respondent continued to violate the rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the respondent in breach of the governing documents and ordered the permanent removal of the cat, along with $740 in damages and $2,200 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application regarding unreasonable noise allegedly coming from the respondent's unit.

During the proceeding, it was revealed that another unit owner was on title and shared possession of the unit, but had not been named as a party or notified of the hearing.

With the agreement of the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the case without prejudice to allow the applicant to refile a new case naming both unit owners as respondents.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to remove the respondents' dog, which exceeded the 25-pound weight limit set out in the corporation's rules.

The respondents requested an accommodation under the Human Rights Code, arguing the dog was an emotional support animal required for a mental health disability.

The Tribunal found that the respondent provided sufficient medical evidence from a registered psychotherapist to establish a disability and the specific therapeutic need for this dog.

The Tribunal ordered that the dog be permitted to remain as an accommodation.

However, because the respondents failed to properly engage in the accommodation process prior to the litigation, they were ordered to pay the applicant's pre-litigation enforcement costs and Tribunal filing fees.