OCAT 2021

The applicant condominium owner requested board minutes from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided minutes but failed to disclose that it had withheld 'in camera' minutes containing redacted information.

The Tribunal found this constituted a refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse and ordered a $1,000 penalty.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to provide written explanations for redactions in two sets of minutes, but dismissed the applicant's claims regarding missing decisions and the respondent's request for legal costs.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking condominium records and minutes.

The respondent provided the records during mediation.

The applicant sought to proceed to adjudication to recover Tribunal fees, arguing the provided rules were inadequate compared to an older version.

The Tribunal dismissed the case, finding it was filed for an improper purpose, the issues were too minor to justify further proceedings, and disputes over the rule amendment process were outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce a rule prohibiting residents from parking in visitor parking spaces.

The respondent unit owners admitted to parking their pickup trucks in the visitor lots because the trucks were too large for their designated underground spaces.

The respondents argued the rule was inconsistently enforced and unreasonable given the popularity of trucks.

The Tribunal found the rule was not unreasonable and was not being unfairly enforced.

The respondents were ordered to comply with the rule and remove their vehicles from the visitor parking lots within 90 days.

The applicant, a condominium owner, sought access to board minutes from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order from the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested approved and unapproved board minutes, subject to statutory redactions, and to pay the applicant $150.00.

The case was resolved without a hearing.

The applicant condominium owner requested bank records, cheque copies, and the most recent auditor's report from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent refused, arguing the records were exempt under s. 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act due to ongoing Superior Court litigation between the parties.

The Tribunal found the bank records and cheque copies were directly related to the ongoing litigation regarding unpaid common expenses and were therefore exempt.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the auditor's report once completed, finding it was a core record not sufficiently related to the litigation to warrant exemption.

Requests for a penalty and costs were dismissed.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal initiated a motion to combine two related records cases involving the same parties.

As the issues were similar, some requested records overlapped, and both parties consented, the Tribunal ordered the cases merged under Rule 4 of the CAT Rules of Practice to ensure a fair and efficient process.

The applicant, a condominium owner, filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal after the respondent condominium corporation failed to adequately respond to requests for records regarding a change in condominium management providers.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide an unredacted record of owners, adequate board minutes reflecting the resolutions to change managers, and all requested contracts.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent refused to provide the records without reasonable excuse, but declined to order a penalty.

The respondent was ordered to produce the outstanding records and pay $200 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought a motion to introduce four new documents as exhibits late in a hearing regarding a records request under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the evidence was either not necessary, could have been discovered earlier, or would introduce unfairness to the respondent by violating the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to ask limited follow-up questions of the respondent's witness instead.

The applicant condominium unit owner sought various records from the respondent condominium corporation, which had recently transitioned to self-management.

The respondent failed to participate in the hearing and had not fully addressed the applicant's five requests for records.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to core records, including financial statements, board minutes, and the record of owners, but not to an insurance application, notice of termination, or hydro reconciliation.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant the requested records, $200 in costs, and a $3,000 penalty due to the respondent's refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse.

The applicant, a unit owner, requested access to condominium records including board meeting minutes and auditor reports.

The respondent provided minutes for only two meetings held in 2020 and stated no 2018 auditor report existed.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent provided all existing records, the board meeting minutes were inadequate under s. 55(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, as they failed to record numerous business decisions made by the board outside of formal meetings.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty but awarded the applicant $200 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium owner, requested the record of owners and mortgagees to run for a board position.

The respondent condominium corporation refused, alleging the applicant intended to use the list to harass board members and owners, and thus the request was not solely related to her interests as an owner.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent failed to prove the applicant was disentitled to the record, as her stated intention to run for the board was related to her interests as an owner.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the record and pay $200 in costs, but declined to award a penalty against the respondent.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion for late disclosure of security camera footage in an ongoing dispute regarding the installation of an electric vehicle charging station as a disability accommodation.

The applicant opposed the motion but did not claim prejudice, arguing the footage was not inconsistent with her disability.

The Tribunal granted the motion, noting its power to control its own process and allowing the applicant two weeks to provide rebuttal evidence.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking an order to allow him to continue using hooks in his parking spot to secure his motorcycle and to stop the condominium corporation from recovering repair costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the dispute related to sections 97 and 98 of the Condominium Act, 1998, which fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Ontario Regulation 179/17.

The applicant condominium owner submitted a records request to the respondent condominium corporation seeking various email communications and authorizations related to a new online communication platform.

The respondent provided an email communications log and a management contract, but failed to use the prescribed form.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the requested records had been provided and that the failure to use the prescribed form did not constitute a refusal without reasonable excuse.

No penalty was ordered, but the respondent was ordered to pay $200 in costs for Tribunal fees.

The applicant, a condominium owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to respond to a request for financial records and records of the mathematical calculation used to determine common expenses.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide the records without reasonable excuse, noting the delay in providing them until the hearing stage.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the outstanding records or confirm they do not exist, and awarded the applicant a $500 penalty and $200 in costs.

The self-represented applicant sought an extension of time to move a condominium records dispute to Stage 3 adjudication after missing the 30-day deadline following mediation.

The Tribunal applied the Frey factors and found that while the delay was minor, granting the extension would significantly prejudice the respondent, who had already produced the requested records on the understanding that the matter was settled.

Furthermore, the remaining issues lacked merit as the requested records were either produced or did not exist.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed and the case was closed.

The applicant unit owner filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation improperly changed the lock on his storage unit without notice.

The respondent argued the lock was changed for security reasons following a key theft and that the dispute fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal determined that the dispute concerned the corporation's right to repair a storage unit door in an emergency, rather than provisions governing the storage of items.

Concluding it lacked jurisdiction under Ontario Regulation 179/17, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant condominium owner challenged an amended parking rule that prohibited parking both a car and a motorcycle in a single designated parking spot.

The applicant argued the rule change process was flawed, the rule was inconsistent with the condominium's Declaration, and it was unreasonable.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while there were minor deficiencies in the notice of the rule amendment, they did not invalidate the rule.

The Tribunal concluded the amended rule was clear, consistent with the Declaration, and met the high threshold for reasonableness, dismissing the application.

The applicant condominium owner requested a copy of the corporation's fire safety plan.

The respondent corporation failed to respond to the request or participate in the early stages of the Tribunal process.

During the hearing, the respondent provided the record at no cost and conceded that a penalty was appropriate.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $300 penalty for failing to provide the record without a reasonable excuse, along with $205 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought a motion to include three additional records requests in an upcoming Stage 3 Tribunal Decision hearing regarding two earlier records requests.

The respondent condominium corporation did not participate in the motion.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the requests were related, adding them would not prejudice the respondent, and consolidating the issues would be fair, focused, and efficient.