Noeline Paul

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

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the application dismissed and directed the respondent condominium corporation to reimburse the applicant $1,000 for the costs of the proceeding.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking information about proxy submissions and vote tallies from an annual general meeting.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to order the production of information, as opposed to records, and that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of its Rules of Practice, noting that the applicant's late request for a dashboard copy was an improper attempt to change the nature of the request.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 2 mediation.

The applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fees within the prescribed time.

Pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal dismissed the application and closed the case.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that an unreasonable laundry odour was transferring into her unit from another unit or the common elements, constituting a nuisance under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent condominium corporation had commissioned multiple inspections which failed to confirm the presence of an unreasonable odour or a definitive source.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the alleged odour was unreasonable or a nuisance, and concluded that the respondent had met its obligations to investigate and enforce its governing documents.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought two applications to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested election records and breached a prior settlement agreement regarding virtual election procedures.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had provided the records in its possession and did not refuse the request without reasonable excuse, thus no penalty was warranted.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the respondent complied with the settlement agreement's terms concerning the display of voting results and the appointment of scrutineers.

Both applications were dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to mutual delays.

The applicant unit owner sought access to proxy records from the respondent condominium corporation's annual general meeting.

The applicant disputed the fees estimated by the respondent, arguing that proxies are core records and should be provided without cost, and challenged the labour and printing rates.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal held that proxies are non-core records subject to fees.

The Tribunal found the estimated labour rate of $30 per hour to be reasonable but ordered the printing costs reduced to $0.012 per page.

The applicant was awarded her $200 filing fee, but her request for a penalty was denied.

The applicant brought a motion to join two cases she initiated against the respondent condominium corporation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

One case involved the enforcement of a settlement agreement and the other related to a request for records.

The respondent consented to the joinder.

The Tribunal found that hearing both cases jointly would allow for a more focused and efficient process, as the parties were the same and there would be overlap in witness testimony.

The motion was granted and the cases were ordered to be heard together pursuant to Rule 18.2 of the CAT Rules of Practice.

The applicant requested a minor correction to a final decision issued by the Condominium Authority Tribunal, seeking to amend a paragraph referencing a date on a request for records form.

The applicant wanted the exact text and checklist box from the form reproduced.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, removing the quotation marks around the date to ensure accuracy, but declined to reproduce the exact text and checklist box, noting that the Tribunal's discretion to correct decisions is not intended to accommodate a party's writing preference.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking access to various corporate records, including board meeting minutes and monthly financial statements.

The tribunal found that while the applicant was entitled to the requested records, the draft monthly financial statements were non-core records subject to reasonable production fees.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent had ultimately provided all requested records and rectified its initial failure to use the prescribed response forms.

The applicant's requests for costs and a penalty were dismissed due to his problematic behaviour during the hearing and the lack of a clear refusal by the respondent.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

During the online hearing process, the applicant repeatedly failed to respond to requests from the Tribunal member and staff.

After issuing a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to which neither party responded, the Tribunal found the case had been abandoned and ordered it dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted multiple requests for core and non-core records relating to a special assessment levied for COVID-19 expenses.

The respondent condominium corporation argued the requests were not validly delivered by email and that some requested items were not records of the corporation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the email delivery was valid given the management's practices, but held that the applicant was not entitled to all requested items, as some were internal working documents or requests for information rather than existing records.

The Tribunal ordered the production of any records provided to the auditor for the special assessment, but declined to award a penalty due to the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic and the respondent's good faith efforts.

The applicant, a former unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order directing the respondent condominium corporation to provide access to certain records.

During the course of the hearing, the applicant sold his unit.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant was no longer entitled to access the records.

The Tribunal found that under subsection 55(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998, the applicant lost his standing to continue the application upon the sale of his unit.

The motion was granted and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought compensation for pain and suffering following a random stabbing assault at a shelter.

The alleged offender was found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board found the applicant was a victim of a crime of violence and that his physical and emotional injuries resulted from the crime.

The Board awarded $9,000 for pain and suffering.

The Applicant applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for compensation following a random street assault that resulted in a fractured jaw, loss of teeth, and psychological trauma.

The Board found that the Applicant was a victim of a crime of violence, supported by the offender's conviction for aggravated assault.

The Board awarded $7,000 for pain and suffering but denied the claim for expenses and income loss due to a lack of supporting documentation.

The Applicant applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for compensation following an assault where the offender bit off the Applicant's ear.

The Board found that the injuries resulted from a crime of violence, as the offender was convicted of aggravated assault.

The Board awarded $10,000 for pain and suffering and $338.24 for travel expenses, but denied claims for income loss and future treatment due to insufficient supporting documentation.

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for injuries sustained when the alleged offender kicked a door into the applicant's face during a dispute.

The alleged offender was initially charged with assault causing bodily harm, which was withdrawn upon entering a peace bond.

The Board found that a crime of violence occurred and awarded the applicant $5,000 for pain and suffering.

The claim for treatment expenses was denied due to insufficient evidence linking the expenses to the incident and a lack of clarity regarding the applicant's insurance coverage.

The Applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for injuries sustained when he was run over and dragged by a motor vehicle driven by his former girlfriend.

The incident occurred as the driver attempted to flee the scene of a shooting.

The Board found that the injuries were the result of a motor vehicle accident, not a crime of violence, as the vehicle was not used to assault the Applicant and the injuries could not be tied to the shooting.

The application for compensation was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, sought compensation for physical and emotional injuries sustained while attempting to lawfully arrest an alleged offender.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board found the applicant was a victim of a crime of violence under section 5(b) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The Board awarded $2,000 for pain and suffering, reduced by $1,281.49 for WSIB benefits already received, resulting in a net award of $718.51.

A claim for incident-related expenses was denied due to lack of supporting documentation.

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for psychological injuries resulting from his ex-spouse counselling an undercover police officer to murder him.

The Board found that because the plot was intercepted and no actual physical violence or harm occurred, the incident did not constitute a 'crime of violence' within the meaning of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The application for compensation was denied.