Condominium Authority Tribunal
Date: May 20, 2021 Case: 2020-00390N
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Nicole Aylwin, Member
The Applicant: Peel Condominium Corporation No. 96 Represented by: Natalia Polis, Counsel
The Respondent: George Psofimis Self-Represented
Hearing: Written Online Hearing – March 11, 2021 to April 27, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. INTRODUCTION
1This case pertains to the enforcement of provisions of the declaration, by-laws or rules of a corporation that prohibit, restrict, or otherwise govern pets or other animals in a unit, the common elements, or the assets, if any, of the corporation.
2The Applicant, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 96 ("PCC 96") asserts that the Respondent, Mr. George Psofimis, who is a unit owner in PCC 96, is in breach of the corporation’s governing documents, specifically its Rule 2.1 (the "pet restriction rule”) which restricts the weight of household pets to 40 pounds. According to PCC 96, Mr. Psofimis is the owner of a German Shepherd dog that exceeds this weight limit.
3PCC 96 also asserts that this is not the first time Mr. Psofimis has owned a dog that contravenes the rules. They submit that prior to obtaining his current dog, Mr. Psofimis owned another German Shepherd dog that exceeded the weight limit. This dog was given legacy status by PCC 96 through a written agreement that stated that Mr. Psofimis would not obtain a new pet in contravention of the rules upon the dog's passing. It is PCC 96's position that despite this agreement, Mr. Psofimis did obtain a new German Shepherd after his previous dog’s passing and that this new dog is in violation of the pet restriction provisions.
4Consequently, PCC 96 has asked the Tribunal to find that Mr. Psofimis is in breach of the pet restriction rule and for an order under section 1.44(1)2 of the Condominium Act,1998 (the “Act”) restricting Mr. Psofimis from acquiring any further pets in contravention of PCC 96’s governing documents. PCC 96 has also requested that the Tribunal order Mr. Psofimis to pay damages and costs related to enforcing the rules.
5Despite having joined and participated in the Stage 2 - Mediation phase of the Tribunal process, Mr. Psofimis did not participate in this Stage 3 - Tribunal Decision hearing. The Stage 2 Summary and Order noted that Mr. Psofimis was aware of the case and ordered him to prepare for the Stage 3 proceeding. At the outset of this Stage 3 hearing, Mr. Psofimis was contacted by Tribunal staff who confirmed that he was aware of the case and his responsibility to participate. Nonetheless, Mr. Psofimis offered no arguments or evidence for the Tribunal to consider in this matter.
6For the reasons set out below, I find that Mr. Psofimis is in breach of PCC 96's Rule 2.1, and, under s.1.44(1)2 of the Act, Mr. Psofimis is ordered to remove his dog from the premises within 30 days of the date of this order.
7I have also determined that under s.1.44(1)3 Mr. Psofimis will be required to pay PCC 96 the amount of $536.00 in damages as a result of an act of non-compliance.
8Finally, I award costs of $200 to PCC 96 for the Tribunal fees and the amount of $3926.75 for legal fees.
B. ISSUES & ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Is Mr. Psofimis in breach of the Corporation's governing documents, specifically its Rule 2.1 that restricts the weight of a "household pet" to 40 pounds?
9Section 2.0 of PCC 96's Rules and Regulations contain several provisions governing animals, pets, livestock, and fowl. Rule 2.1 speaks specifically to household pets. It reads:
No animals, reptiles, fowl or other exotic pets other than two