Nicole Aylwin

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion to remove the agent representing the respondent owner and the intervenor tenants, arguing the agent did not qualify for the 'friend' exemption under the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Law Society By-law 4.

The Tribunal found that the agent qualified as a friend to the intervenors and could continue to represent them.

However, the Tribunal found no evidence of a relationship between the agent and the respondent owner beyond this case, and disqualified the agent from representing the respondent.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking to enforce a no-smoking rule against a neighbouring unit owner.

The Tribunal noted that the parties had previously litigated the same issue, resulting in prior Tribunal orders.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, finding that it lacked the legal authority to enforce its own orders and could not re-hear issues already decided.

The application was dismissed as an improper use of the Tribunal's process.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested various records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to respond within the required 30 days and did not provide the requested records, citing administrative error and confusion over the request.

The Tribunal found that the respondent refused to provide the records without a reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce certain outstanding records, some subject to reasonable fees, and ordered the respondent to pay a $450 penalty and $200 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to comply with a rule requiring pets to be carried or in a container while on common elements.

The respondent argued she was entitled to an accommodation under the Human Rights Code due to a physical disability that prevented her from carrying her dog.

The Tribunal found that the rule had a discriminatory effect on the respondent and ordered the condominium to accommodate her by allowing her to walk her dog on a short leash.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's claim for damages, finding no evidence that the condominium acted in bad faith or harassed her.

No costs were awarded.

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

The applicant alleged the corporation refused to provide the records without a reasonable excuse and charged an unreasonable fee for non-core records.

The Tribunal found that the corporation did not refuse the records; it provided the core records and reasonably estimated the fee for the non-core records.

When the corporation later discovered some requested records were missing, it made reasonable efforts to locate them.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to provide the available non-core records at no cost, as agreed during the hearing, but declined to order a penalty, mandatory director training, or costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that second-hand smoke from a neighbouring unit was migrating into her unit, creating a nuisance.

She claimed the condominium corporation failed to enforce its no-smoking rules against the neighbouring tenant and owner.

The Tribunal found no objective evidence that the neighbouring tenant was smoking or that the applicant was experiencing smoke and odour at a level constituting a substantial and unreasonable interference.

The Tribunal concluded the condominium corporation had diligently investigated the complaints and fulfilled its enforcement obligations.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against a tenant for creating unreasonable noise and smoking cannabis, and against the unit owner for failing to ensure her tenant's compliance.

The Tribunal found that the tenant breached the condominium's governing documents by playing loud music, singing karaoke overnight, and smoking cannabis on the balcony.

The Tribunal also found the owner failed to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance, as she only initiated an LTB application without further follow-up.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to cease the nuisances and ordered the owner to provide updates on enforcement.

The respondents were ordered to jointly and severally pay $508.50 in pre-litigation damages and $5,200 in costs.

The applicant unit owner applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to enforce its governing documents against a former board member.

The applicant raised issues regarding exterior appearance, landscaping, and the parking of a boat trailer on common elements.

The Tribunal found that the issues relating to exterior appearance and landscaping fell outside its jurisdiction under O. Reg. 179/17.

Regarding the parking and vehicle maintenance rules, the Tribunal held that the corporation exercised reasonable discretion in its enforcement efforts and did not fail to enforce the governing documents.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding unreasonable noise and vibration caused by the dropping of free weights in the condominium's gym, located on the same floor as his unit.

The respondent condominium corporation argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, characterizing the issue as one of maintenance and repair of the gym floor.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction, as the issue stemmed from the activity of dropping weights, which constituted a nuisance under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to complete planned flooring upgrades, conduct acoustical testing, and prohibit the use of free weights until noise levels met target criteria.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal but failed to participate in the Stage 3 hearing.

Despite multiple reminders and a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant did not submit any evidence or submissions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the case and ordered it dismissed under Rule 43.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal but failed to participate in the Stage 3 hearing.

Despite multiple reminders and a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant did not submit any evidence or submissions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the case and ordered it dismissed under Rule 43.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant owner's case for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that the use of free weights in the condominium gym caused unreasonable noise and vibration, constituting a nuisance.

The respondent argued the issue was about the maintenance and repair of the gym floor, which falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the noise complained of may be the result of an activity carried out by residents, and the potential need for a repair does not automatically remove the case from its jurisdiction.

The applicant brought an application before the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that elevator noise constituted a nuisance under s. 117(2)(a) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The parties agreed that the matter did not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal issued a consent order dismissing the case on a without prejudice basis, leaving the issue of costs to be pursued in any further proceeding outside the Tribunal.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought a Tribunal case against the respondent condominium corporation alleging it failed to provide requested records, improperly redacted meeting minutes, charged excessive fees, and failed to maintain adequate records.

The Tribunal found that while the corporation had a reasonable excuse for refusing some records, it improperly refused others, overly redacted certain minutes, and incorrectly charged a $150 redaction fee.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to reimburse the $150 fee, pay a $200 penalty for refusing records without a reasonable excuse, and pay $225 in Tribunal costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce a rule prohibiting the parking of commercial vehicles and vehicles with advertising on common elements or exclusive use areas against a tenant who parked his work truck in his driveway.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the rule was not enacted to prevent an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the property or to promote safety, as required by section 58(1) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal concluded the rule was unenforceable and ordered the corporation to refrain from enforcing it against the respondent and intervenors.

The applicant brought a motion to correct or clarify a previous Tribunal decision, arguing the decision was wrong and seeking a substantive change.

The respondent also submitted a request to clarify, seeking permission to make submissions on costs.

The Tribunal dismissed both motions.

The applicant's request was denied because Rule 46.7 does not permit substantive changes to a decision.

The respondent's request was denied because reopening the hearing to take submissions on costs that could have been made during the hearing would not accord with the Tribunal's mandate for an efficient process.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring a unit owner to comply with rules regarding motorcycle parking and keeping cats indoors.

The owner argued the parking rule only applied to commercial motorcycles and that his cat escaped despite his efforts.

The Tribunal found the parking rule clearly prohibited all motorcycles in designated spots, but did not prohibit driving them on driveways.

The Tribunal also found the owner breached the pet rule by allowing his cat to roam outdoors.

The owner was ordered to remove his motorcycle from the parking space, keep his cat indoors, and pay $275 in Tribunal costs.

The applicant unit owner brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation for failing to provide requested records, including board meeting minutes, a maintenance and repair chart, and records related to fence repairs, mice, and mold.

The Tribunal found that the corporation failed to provide the July 2021 meeting minutes and fence repair records without a reasonable excuse, noting a lack of diligence and oversight by the board.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the maintenance chart, mice, and mold records, as those records did not exist and the corporation was not obligated to create them.

The corporation was ordered to pay a $750 penalty and $200 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal claiming that the respondents, who own the unit above hers, were causing unreasonable noise and nuisance, including heavy footsteps, banging, and overwatering balcony plants.

The respondents denied the allegations, asserting they were only carrying out normal daily activities and that the applicant was harassing them.

The Tribunal found insufficient objective evidence to conclude that the respondents were creating unreasonable noise or nuisance in violation of the Condominium Act or the condominium's governing documents.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $210 in costs to the intervenor condominium corporation for unreasonable behavior during the proceeding.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order directing the respondent tenant to comply with its rules prohibiting the smoking of cannabis on condominium property.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing but had previously claimed a medical need to smoke cannabis.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was smoking cannabis in her unit in breach of the rules and had failed to provide sufficient medical documentation to support a request for accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to immediately cease smoking cannabis in her unit.