OCAT 2021

The applicant filed an application against the respondent condominium corporation regarding a records request.

The parties resolved the matter in Stage 2 Mediation, with the respondent agreeing to provide the requested documents and reimburse the applicant $100 for costs and fees.

The applicant agreed to withdraw the application.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order closing the file.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal, which proceeded to Stage 2 mediation.

The applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to do so for more than 30 days.

Pursuant to Rule 32.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, the tribunal ordered the case closed in Stage 2.

The applicant, a condominium owner, sought a determination that he was entitled to use the outdoor accessible parking spaces at his condominium.

The respondent condominium corporation argued he was parking in visitor parking and lacked sufficient medical evidence to justify an accommodation, subsequently charging him legal costs and registering a lien against his unit.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the applicant was parking in designated accessible spaces and was entitled to do so because he possessed a valid provincial Accessible Parking Permit, which satisfied the condominium's declaration.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease enforcement actions, remove the lien, and pay the applicant $200 in costs and $1,500 in damages for harassment and non-compliance with the Condominium Act.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested the most recent Periodic Information Certificate and security footage stills of himself from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to respond to the requests and did not participate in the Tribunal hearing.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the requested records under section 55 of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the records, pay a $500 penalty for refusing the request without reasonable excuse, and reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.

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

After the applicant indicated they no longer wished to continue and failed to respond to subsequent directions, a Notice of Intent to Dismiss was issued.

The parties did not provide submissions, and the Tribunal dismissed the case as abandoned under Rule 32.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant brought a motion challenging the authority of the respondent condominium corporation's board of directors to retain and instruct a representative, arguing the board had lost quorum due to resignations.

The Tribunal found that retaining a legal representative is a business matter requiring a quorum under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The hearing was adjourned for 45 days to allow the respondent to demonstrate it has quorum or to take necessary steps to remedy the situation.

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

During the hearing of preliminary motions, the applicant sold her unit.

The Tribunal determined that the applicant's sale of her unit ended her entitlement to the requested records under section 55(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal also dismissed motions challenging the authority of the respondent's representative, requesting a three-member panel, and seeking confidentiality of the adjudicative record.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed a request for records from the respondent condominium corporation.

Following a hearing, the Condominium Authority Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the plan for the future funding of the reserve fund and to review and disclose records relating to concluded litigation, finding that the statutory exemption for litigation records ends when the litigation concludes, subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for a penalty but ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.

The applicant sought access to condominium records, specifically the 2015 and 2018 Reserve Fund Studies.

The parties reached a settlement during the mediation stage of the Condominium Authority Tribunal process.

The tribunal issued a consent order confirming that the respondent provided the requested records and the applicant accepted them, resolving the dispute.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to comply with a prior settlement agreement regarding the disclosure of email correspondence.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent had reviewed the emails as required and correctly determined they did not relate to board business, thus complying with the agreement.

However, because the respondent failed to adequately explain its reasons for withholding the emails prior to the hearing, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant's $150 filing fees.

The applicant unit owner requested various condominium records, including historical meeting minutes and breakdowns of an extra occupancy assessment.

The respondent condominium corporation provided some records but refused others, stating they did not exist.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the corporation had a statutory duty to retain meeting minutes indefinitely, it could not be ordered to produce records that do not exist.

The Tribunal concluded the refusal was not unreasonable under the circumstances and dismissed the application without costs.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking an order for the respondent condominium corporation to provide board meeting minutes.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the case on the basis that the applicant had sold their unit and was no longer entitled to obtain records under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal found that under subsection 55(3) of the Act, the entitlement to examine or obtain records does not extend past when ownership ends.

The motion was granted and the case was dismissed.

The applicant condominium owner sought an order regarding his eligibility to use an accessible parking space.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the case, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the dispute related to section 117 of the Condominium Act, and that the application was an abuse of process due to multiple other legal proceedings commenced by the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the central issue of parking eligibility was not sufficiently connected to section 117 to oust its jurisdiction, and that the Tribunal was the appropriate forum to resolve the parking dispute despite the other ongoing litigation.