OCAT 2021

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application on the basis that the Condominium Authority Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily concerning the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought an exemption from the corporation's pet rule to allow her son to keep an emotional support animal that exceeded the corporation's 25-pound weight limit.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that because the dispute involved the validity and enforceability of the corporation's pet rule and emotional support animal policy, it fell squarely within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant and respondent agreed to settle their dispute during Stage 2 (Mediation) in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online system.

The tribunal issued a consent order under Rule 32.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, requiring the respondent to permit the applicant to attend owners' meetings and ask questions regarding the corporation's financial status and special assessments.

The respondent was also ordered to reimburse the applicant $100 for tribunal fees.

The applicant unit owner filed an application challenging the validity of an amendment to the condominium corporation's declaration regarding animals, alleging procedural non-compliance with the Condominium Act.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute was solely about process and the applicant lacked standing due to failing to register a corporate name change.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the applicant had standing as a registered owner and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider procedural matters when determining the validity of a declaration provision governing animals.

The applicant brought a case before the Condominium Authority Tribunal to enforce two settlement agreements regarding requests for condominium records.

The applicant alleged that the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide certain records and that other provided records were inadequate.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide specific general ledgers and security management contracts, but substantially complied with the remaining terms of the agreements.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the missing records and reimburse the applicant's filing fees, but declined to order a penalty as the respondent had not refused to provide records without reasonable excuse.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application to enforce its visitor parking rules against the respondent unit owner.

The corporation alleged that the respondent was parking his truck in the visitor parking lot in violation of the rules.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while the corporation proved the existence of the rule, it failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that the respondent was actually parking in the visitor lot.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to exclude the testimony of two witnesses called by the applicant owner in a records dispute.

The witnesses testified about their own experiences requesting records from the corporation.

The corporation argued the evidence should be excluded on grounds of relevance, repetition, the rule against similar fact evidence, and hearsay.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the evidence potentially relevant to whether adequate records were provided, and noting that tribunals have broad discretion to admit hearsay and are not bound by criminal law principles regarding similar fact evidence.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for various non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent agreed to provide the records but charged fees based on an hourly rate of $65, which the applicant disputed as unreasonable.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the $65 hourly rate unjustified and reduced it to $32 per hour.

Because the respondent's initially requested fees were unreasonably high and acted as a barrier, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide most of the requested records at no cost and to reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging they did not receive the storage locker specified in their pre-construction purchase contract.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the dispute appeared to be contractual and related to title to real property, which falls outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal concluded that the cited declaration provisions did not govern the storage of items as required by Ontario Regulation 179/17.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal under s. 1.47(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998, seeking compliance with a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant was not a party to a previous settlement agreement and the issues raised were new and outside the Tribunal's current jurisdiction.

The applicant confirmed the issues were new.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as it did not meet the statutory requirements.

The applicant, a unit owner and former board member, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking an order for the respondent condominium corporation to produce certain board meeting minutes.

The respondent argued the meetings were confidential disciplinary panels and that the records related to contemplated litigation.

The Tribunal found that while the meetings were board meetings, the respondent was justified in refusing to produce the minutes under section 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998, as they related to contemplated litigation regarding disciplinary actions against the applicant and another board member.

The application was dismissed with no order for costs or penalties.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to remove his German Shepherd dog, which exceeded the 40-pound weight limit set out in the corporation's rules.

The respondent had previously signed an agreement acknowledging the rule and promising not to replace a previous overweight dog, but acquired a new German Shepherd anyway.

The Tribunal found the respondent in breach of the rules and ordered him to remove the dog within 30 days.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay $536 in damages for the cost of a legal compliance letter and $4,126.75 in costs due to his willful non-compliance.

The applicant, an owner and board member of the respondent condominium corporation, brought an application regarding visitor parking enforcement changes made by an intervening condominium corporation under a shared facilities agreement.

The intervenor moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the dispute was essentially between two condominium corporations and that the Tribunal has no statutory authority under the Condominium Act, 1998 to decide disputes between corporations or cases brought by individuals against corporations where they are not owners.

The applicant condominium corporation initiated three separate cases against unit owners regarding visitor parking rules.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal merge the cases.

As all parties consented and the Tribunal found that merging the cases would provide a fair, focused, and efficient process without prejudice, the Tribunal ordered the three cases to be heard together pursuant to Rule 16.2 of the CAT Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium owner requested various records relating to a siding project from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided some records but failed to provide tendering documents, engineering reports, and specific invoices, and subsequently ceased participating in the Tribunal process.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested records, finding no exemptions applied.

The Tribunal also awarded the applicant $200 in costs and imposed a $500 penalty on the respondent for refusing to provide the records without reasonable excuse.

The applicant condominium owner sought access to the condominium corporation's records.

During Stage 2 mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online system, the parties reached a settlement.

The tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide the audited financial statements for the year ending February 28, 2020, and to reimburse the applicant's $75 filing fee.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 43 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice to correct or clarify a previous decision regarding a records request.

The applicant sought changes to the Tribunal's findings regarding a playground committee and the section applied to his legal costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 43 only permits minor typographical or calculation corrections, not substantive changes to findings.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies.

The applicant, a condominium owner, sought incident reports from the respondent condominium corporation regarding noise complaints.

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

The tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide redacted copies of the requested incident reports and to reimburse the applicant's $75 filing fee.

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

During Stage 2 mediation, the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement regarding the payment for and delivery of the requested records.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement, requiring the respondent to provide the specified records within 15 days of receiving payment.

The applicant condominium owner brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal requesting access to various corporate records.

As a preliminary issue, the applicant argued the respondent's board of directors lacked a quorum and therefore had no authority to retain an agent or participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the board had improperly attempted to reduce its quorum requirements without a valid by-law amendment and had subsequently lost its quorum.

The Tribunal proceeded without the respondent's participation and ordered the respondent to provide the requested records to the applicant at no cost.

The applicant, a condominium owner, sought the repeal of a rule restricting pets from the building's front lobby, arguing it was unreasonable and inconsistent with the declaration.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that a 2019 amendment easing the restriction was invalid due to procedural non-compliance, making the stricter 2017 rule the current version.

The Tribunal held that the 2017 rule was reasonable, consistent with the declaration, and enacted to address legitimate issues with pet waste and altercations.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.