OCAT 2019

The applicant sought records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties settled the matter during Stage 2 Mediation.

The respondent agreed to provide the complete owner's list, supporting affidavits from directors, and reimbursement of the $75.00 application fee.

The applicant confirmed receipt and agreed to withdraw the application.

The Tribunal issued a consent order closing the file.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to reopen a case after failing to participate in the Tribunal proceedings.

The corporation argued its property manager failed to notify the Board of the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it unreasonable for the corporation to rely on its property manager while expecting the unit owner to question the manager's performance.

The Tribunal also found no unfairness in refusing to reopen the case, as the disputed settlement agreement record was not protected by litigation privilege.

The unit owner's request for costs was denied.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested copies of legal invoices referencing his unit from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent refused, claiming solicitor-client and litigation privilege, and statutory exemptions under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had waived privilege by disclosing the total amount of the legal fees and the general nature of the advice in a letter to all owners.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested records, subject to redactions for the specific legal advice given, upon payment of a $66.80 production fee.

No costs or penalties were awarded.

The applicant condominium owner requested various core and non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to respond to the request and did not participate in the Condominium Authority Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to all requested records, including a settlement agreement from a civil action commenced by the corporation on behalf of the owners, as the litigation privilege exception did not apply.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the records, pay a $3,000 penalty for its willful disregard of its legal obligations, and pay $150 in costs.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking an order for the respondent condominium corporation to provide copies of records.

Shortly after filing, the applicant sold his condominium unit.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the case on the basis that the applicant was no longer an owner and therefore lost standing to obtain records under section 55(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that a person must be an owner both when the records are requested and when they are examined or obtained.

The motion was granted and the case was dismissed.

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

The parties requested that their agreement be incorporated into a consent order.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued the consent order, requiring the respondent to provide the requested records and reimburse the applicant's $75 filing fee, and requiring the applicant to use the proper forms for future requests.

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 condominium owner requested copies of board meeting minutes from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided some minutes but missed others due to a change in property management companies and administrative oversight.

The applicant sought a penalty against the respondent for refusing to provide the records without reasonable excuse.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent did not intentionally withhold the records and that the failure was due to administrative oversight.

The request for a penalty was dismissed, but the applicant was awarded $210 in costs for the earlier stages of the proceeding.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested financial statements and legal fee invoices from the respondent condominium corporation.

After the respondent provided redacted invoices that the applicant initially found unsatisfactory, the respondent clarified the documents during the tribunal proceeding.

The applicant confirmed satisfaction with the records provided.

The tribunal ordered the case closed and directed the respondent to pay the applicant's $150 filing fee as costs, with a provision for a common expense credit if unpaid.

The applicant and the respondent reached an agreement to settle a dispute regarding a request for condominium records.

The parties requested that their agreement be incorporated into a Consent Order.

The Tribunal issued the Consent Order, which required the applicant to pay a labour fee of $30 per hour, up to an estimated $900, for the production of the requested records, and required the respondent to produce the records and refund any difference if the actual labour time was less than estimated.

The applicant, a unit owner and former director, requested condominium records including the Record of Owners and Mortgagees and a policy on liens and arrears.

The applicant alleged the owners' list was inaccurate and the policy provided was incomplete.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the condominium corporation failed to maintain the owners' list accurately or failed to provide the correct policy.

However, because the condominium corporation delayed providing the owners' list beyond the 30-day statutory timeline, the Tribunal awarded a nominal penalty of $75 against the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion to correct or clarify a previous order that dismissed his application for condominium records.

The applicant argued the previous decision wrongly interpreted evidence and was unfair.

The Tribunal held that Rule 30 of its Rules of Practice only permits corrections of typographical, calculation, or similar minor errors, and does not grant jurisdiction to reconsider substantive findings or weigh evidence anew.

The motion was denied for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant and respondent condominium corporation agreed to settle their dispute regarding a standard unit by-law.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a Consent Order incorporating the terms of their agreement, which required the corporation to obtain quotes for drafting a standard unit by-law, hold owner meetings to vote on its adoption, distribute an informational letter to owners regarding insurance obligations, and pay the applicant $75.00.

The applicant unit owner submitted a request for records to the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 mediation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide the requested records electronically, pay $75 for tribunal fees, and pay an additional $500 to the applicant.

The tribunal ordered the file closed.

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

During the proceedings, 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 obtain records under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the applicant lost standing when he sold his unit, and that a subsequent agency agreement from another owner only authorized examination, not obtaining copies.

The applicant applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order directing the respondent condominium corporation to provide electronic copies of certain records.

During the written hearing, the applicant acknowledged he had sold his unit and no longer owned any units in the corporation.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant lost his entitlement to the records under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that under subsection 55(3) of the Act, a person must be an owner at the time they examine or receive copies of the requested records.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a formal request for core records (declaration, by-laws, and rules) to the respondent condominium corporation following water damage to his unit.

The respondent failed to respond to the request and did not participate in the Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested records at no cost.

Finding that the respondent willfully disregarded its legal obligations without reasonable excuse, the Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay a $2,500 penalty and $150 in costs, with a provision allowing the applicant to set off these amounts against his common expenses.

The applicant brought a second motion requesting the Tribunal to reconsider its earlier decision denying a motion to correct or clarify a dismissal order.

The applicant sought to correct perceived incorrect statements of fact and misrepresentations.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the requested changes were substantive and beyond its jurisdiction under Rule 30 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal also noted that the matter was moot as the dismissal order had already been published online.

The applicant and respondent reached a settlement agreement regarding their condominium dispute and requested a consent order from the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, requiring the respondent to reimburse the applicant for tribunal fees.

The case was subsequently closed.

The applicant, a non-resident condominium unit owner, sought an order that the respondent condominium corporation failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide a Record of Owners and Mortgagees by a specified date.

The respondent provided an incomplete list of owners before the deadline and only provided the complete record during the tribunal hearing.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement agreement by missing the deadline.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant $125 for the Stage 3 tribunal filing fee incurred due to the delay.