OCAT 2021

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested 17 sets of records from the respondent condominium corporation.

While some records were provided during the hearing, the applicant disputed the completeness and redactions of others.

The Tribunal found the respondent had a reasonable excuse for not providing records that did not exist or were protected by solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege.

However, the respondent lacked a reasonable excuse for withholding operating fund bank statements and providing illegible repair invoices.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the withheld records with appropriate redactions, and awarded the applicant an $800 penalty and $200 in costs due to the respondent's unreasonable delay and inadequate record-keeping.

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

The applicant failed to pay the required fee to move the case to a tribunal decision hearing.

The tribunal determined the applicant abandoned the case and ordered it dismissed under Rule 32.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested noise complaint incident reports from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to respond to the request or participate in the early stages of the tribunal process, citing a change in management.

The respondent eventually provided the records at the hearing.

The tribunal found the respondent's failure to respond constituted a refusal without reasonable excuse and ordered the respondent to pay a $500 penalty and $150 in tribunal costs.

The applicant and respondent reached a settlement during Stage 2 Mediation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The parties agreed to a consent order resolving the dispute.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant's $75 filing fee within 30 days and closed the file.

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

The applicant repeatedly failed to take the actions required to actively participate and move the matter forward to adjudication.

The Tribunal found the case to be abandoned and ordered it dismissed pursuant to Rule 32.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a unit owner, sought to withdraw his case against the condominium corporation regarding the enforcement of parking rules.

The respondent opposed a withdrawal without costs, arguing it had incurred significant expenses and that the applicant was engaging in a pattern of disruptive litigation.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal without costs, finding that the applicant's request was reasonable in light of a recent Tribunal decision in a related matter and that he had not behaved vexatiously or unduly delayed the proceedings.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested board meeting minutes from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to respond to the request.

At the Tribunal, the respondent argued it was entitled to redact discussions of legal matters from the minutes under the litigation privilege exception.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to the minutes, but the respondent could redact references to actual or contemplated litigation.

The Tribunal also set a reasonable fee of $60 for the production of the records, imposed a $1,000 penalty on the respondent for failing to respond without a reasonable excuse, and awarded $200 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant condominium owner requested various financial and legal records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties agreed on the applicant's entitlement to the records and the hourly rate for redaction, but disputed the estimated time required to redact the records.

The Tribunal found the respondent's estimate of 21.5 hours to be reasonable given the need for careful review of sensitive information, but held that no photocopying fees could be charged as the redactions could be done electronically.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for a penalty, finding the respondent had a reasonable excuse for its initial refusals, and declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant, a unit owner and board member, sought an order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to invoke a dispute resolution process under a shared facilities agreement to obtain a document from another condominium corporation regarding the procurement of an insurance policy.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the requested document likely did not exist and was not a record the respondent was obliged to maintain under the Condominium Act, 1998.

Consequently, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to order the requested relief and declined to award a penalty or costs.

The applicant, a condominium owner who does not own a vehicle, sought to use visitor parking passes for a borrowed family vehicle.

The condominium corporation denied the request, citing rules restricting visitor parking to actual guests and a history of parking shortages.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation's interpretation of its rules was reasonable and protected by the business judgment rule.

The tribunal concluded the rules were reasonable, consistently applied, and dismissed the application without costs.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal for records.

Before joining the case, the respondent condominium corporation provided the records and agreed to reimburse the filing fees.

The only remaining issue was the applicant's claim for legal fees.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for legal fees, finding no exceptional reasons under Rule 46.1 of the CAT Rules of Practice to order them, and formally ordered the reimbursement of the filing fees.

The applicant condominium owner sought records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties resolved the dispute during the mediation stage at the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

A consent order was issued requiring the corporation to provide various records, including board minutes, financial statements, and management agreements, subject to permitted redactions under the Condominium Act.

The corporation was also ordered to reimburse the applicant's $75 tribunal fee.

The applicant unit owner submitted a request for various condominium records.

The respondent condominium corporation agreed to provide the records but claimed fees for the labour required to redact them.

The applicant disputed the estimated time required for redaction and sought a penalty for the respondent's initial refusal to provide certain records.

The Tribunal found the respondent's estimated fee of $557 for redaction to be reasonable and ordered the applicant to pay it.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty, finding the respondent had a reasonable excuse for its initial refusal, and declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant unit owner sought an exemption from the condominium corporation's 'no pets' rule to accommodate her son's need for an emotional support animal (ESA).

The applicant acquired a Labrador dog expected to weigh 60-70 pounds.

The condominium corporation agreed to accommodate the ESA but imposed a 25-pound weight restriction.

The Tribunal found that while the corporation's Service Animal Policy and exemption procedures were invalid attempts to bypass statutory rule-making requirements, the 25-pound weight limit was a reasonable condition of accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent and intervenor sought legal costs following the dismissal of the applicant's condominium dispute.

The Tribunal found that while the self-represented applicant's introduction of extraneous issues was merely unreasonable, her persistent refusal to follow directions and her unexcused absence from a scheduled hearing day constituted grossly unreasonable conduct.

The Tribunal awarded partial legal costs and disbursements against the applicant.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to order the respondent to add the intervenor's costs to the applicant's common expenses.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent tenant to permanently remove his two dogs from the premises due to persistent noise complaints and aggressive behaviour.

The tenant argued the dogs were service animals and the complaints were exaggerated.

The Tribunal found the tenant in persistent breach of the corporation's pet nuisance rules and ordered the dogs removed.

The Tribunal also ordered the tenant to pay the majority of the corporation's legal costs, while the respondent landlord was ordered to pay pre-litigation costs pursuant to the corporation's indemnification provisions, as he had made reasonable efforts to obtain the tenant's compliance.

The applicant condominium owner and the respondent condominium corporation reached a settlement during Stage 2 (Mediation) of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution process regarding a request for financial records.

The parties agreed to a consent order requiring the corporation to provide specific financial records for the period ending August 31, 2021, subject to permitted redactions under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The corporation also agreed to reimburse the applicant's $75.00 Tribunal fee.

The Tribunal issued the consent order to close the case.

The Applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested aggregate records regarding the number of occupants granted 'grandfathered' exemptions from the corporation's new smoke-free rules, broken down by floor.

The Respondent condominium corporation denied the request, arguing it sought personal information about specific units or owners under s. 55(4)(c) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the requested aggregate data did not relate to specific units or owners.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application because the requested information did not currently exist as a record, and the Tribunal will not order a corporation to create a new record that it is not otherwise required to maintain.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal requesting an accessible parking space for his spouse and challenging the reassignment of parking spots.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the case, arguing the issues were resolved because the applicant's spouse had passed away and the parking spots had been reassigned according to the survey.

The Tribunal found the issues were moot and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal also awarded $1,000 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant's unreasonable behaviour in raising irrelevant issues.

The applicant requested condominium records from the respondent corporation.

The parties reached a settlement during the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online mediation stage.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the corporation to provide redacted in-camera board meeting minutes and various non-core financial and legal records to the applicant at no cost.