OCAT 2022

The applicant unit owner challenged the validity of the condominium corporation's Rule 27, which permitted existing 'legacy cats' to remain on the premises despite a strict 'no pets' provision in the declaration.

The condominium corporation had historically failed to enforce the no-pets provision for over 30 years and enacted Rule 27 as a transition measure to bring itself into compliance over time.

The Tribunal found that Rule 27 was a reasonable effort to balance the rights of current cat owners with the obligation to enforce the declaration, and dismissed the application.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a default proceeding against the respondent owner for parking three motorcycles in a single parking spot, in violation of the corporation's declaration.

Despite multiple notices and legal letters, the respondent failed to comply and did not participate in the Tribunal hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent in breach of the declaration and ordered him to cease parking more than one motor vehicle in any of his parking spots.

The respondent was also ordered to pay $2,150 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant brought a nuisance application against a tenant occupier.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal closed the case due to inactivity for more than 30 days.

The applicant filed a motion to reopen the case, which was supported by the intervenor condominium corporation.

Applying the factors from Frey v. MacDonald, the Tribunal granted the motion, finding minimal prejudice to the parties and noting that requiring a new application would result in increased time and costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal claiming that the respondents, who own the unit above hers, were causing unreasonable noise and nuisance, including heavy footsteps, banging, and overwatering balcony plants.

The respondents denied the allegations, asserting they were only carrying out normal daily activities and that the applicant was harassing them.

The Tribunal found insufficient objective evidence to conclude that the respondents were creating unreasonable noise or nuisance in violation of the Condominium Act or the condominium's governing documents.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $210 in costs to the intervenor condominium corporation for unreasonable behavior during the proceeding.

The applicant filed a noise complaint against the condominium corporation, the unit owner, and the unit's tenants.

Upon learning that the tenants no longer resided in the unit, the applicant brought a motion to remove them as respondents.

The remaining respondents consented to the removal.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal granted the motion and ordered the former tenants removed as respondents.

The applicant unit owner sought records from the respondent condominium corporation regarding the cleanliness, security, and maintenance of common elements.

The respondent argued the request was an improper fishing expedition and quoted a fee of over $15,000 to produce the records, primarily due to the cost of reviewing thousands of emails.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the records, as the request was reasonably specific and related to his interests as an owner.

However, the Tribunal found the estimated fee for email production was unreasonable, resulting partly from the corporation's inefficient record-keeping practices and partly from the applicant's refusal to narrow search terms.

The Tribunal reduced the total fee to approximately $8,500 and ordered the corporation to produce the records upon payment, while reimbursing the applicant's filing fee.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent to remove her dog, which exceeded the 9 kg weight limit and exhibited aggressive behaviour.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing but had previously claimed the dog was a service animal requiring accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the respondent failed to establish a disability or disability-related need for a dog exceeding the weight limit.

The Tribunal upheld the board's determination that the dog was a nuisance and ordered its removal, along with costs to the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent unit owner breached a settlement agreement by continuing to cause excessive noise, primarily from late-night social gatherings.

The respondent denied the noise was excessive, arguing the building had inadequate sound insulation and that he also experienced noise from neighbouring units.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached the settlement agreement and ordered him to respect the quiet enjoyment of others.

However, the Tribunal also ordered the applicant to investigate the respondent's complaints regarding noise transmission into his unit.

The respondent was ordered to pay half of the applicant's legal costs.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought a case before the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records and provided inadequate or excessively redacted records.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide the correct audited financial statements, maintained an inadequate record of notices of leased units and record of owners and mortgagees, and excessively redacted board meeting minutes without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to review and update the records, provide properly redacted copies, and pay a $750 penalty along with $200 in costs.

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 pay the required fee after more than 15 days.

Pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal ordered the case closed in Stage 2.

In a condominium noise dispute, the applicants named 'Occupant' as a respondent, intending to identify the unit owner's daughter and caregiver who frequently visited.

The unit owner brought a motion to remove 'Occupant' as a party.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the daughter did not reside in the unit and lacked sufficient possession or control to meet the definition of an 'occupier' under the Condominium Act, 1998 or the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application against the condominium corporation alleging unreasonable noise from heat pumps in the units above and below hers.

The Tribunal found that the noise constituted a nuisance and that the corporation failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and enforce compliance with the condominium's rules.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to reimburse the applicant for the cost of her acoustical engineering reports and awarded costs.

The applicant brought an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement by failing to provide complete board meeting minutes.

The respondent sought to dismiss the case for delay and lack of standing, as the applicant was a tenant, not the registered owner.

The Tribunal found the applicant acted in good faith regarding the delay and had standing as a party to the settlement agreement.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the merits, finding the respondent did not breach the agreement because it was only required to provide records it actually possessed, and there was no evidence the missing topics were ever discussed or recorded in any minutes.

The applicant, whose access to the Condominium Authority Tribunal had been previously restricted due to vexatious conduct, sought permission to file a new application.

The Tribunal found that the proposed application raised minor issues consistent with the applicant's prior improper use of the Tribunal to impose personal recordkeeping standards on the respondent condominium corporation.

The Tribunal denied the request to file a new case and ordered the applicant to pay $500 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant condominium owner brought a claim against the condominium corporation, the landlord of the unit above, and the tenant of that unit, alleging an ongoing noise nuisance.

The condominium corporation settled with the applicant, agreeing to pay costs and tribunal fees.

The tribunal proceeded against the landlord and tenant, finding that the tenant's frequent late-night noise constituted an unreasonable nuisance under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The tribunal also found the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the tenant's compliance.

However, because the tenant had vacated the unit and the applicant provided no evidence of financial damages, no compensation or further costs were ordered against the landlord or tenant.

The applicant unit owner brought an application before the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that upgraded telecommunications antennae on the condominium's roof constituted a nuisance, annoyance, and disruption.

The applicant argued that the antennae unreasonably interfered with the use and enjoyment of her penthouse unit and balcony, primarily due to their appearance and a speculative reduction in property value.

The Tribunal found that the antennae did not create noise or vibration, nor did they physically impede the use of the balcony.

Relying on established jurisprudence, the Tribunal held that a partially obstructed view over the roofline and speculative future loss of resale value do not constitute an unreasonable interference or nuisance.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant unit owner requested records from the respondent condominium corporation regarding a plumbing leak and subsequent chargeback invoices.

The respondent failed to provide the records or a formal board response, and did not participate in the Tribunal hearing.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the records and that the respondent refused to provide them without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the records, pay a $3,000 penalty, and reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent unit owner breached the declaration and rules regarding noise, smoking, and nuisance.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent contravened the governing documents by smoking in common elements and creating excessive noise.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the rules and pay $450 in compensation for pre-litigation compliance costs, plus $1,400 in legal costs and tribunal fees.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed a complaint against the condominium corporation regarding excessive noise and vibration transmitted from the unit above after the upstairs residents installed vinyl flooring.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the noise constituted an unreasonable nuisance that substantially interfered with the applicant's quiet enjoyment of her unit.

The Tribunal held that the condominium corporation failed to conduct a meaningful investigation into the source of the noise transference.

The corporation was ordered to conduct a professional acoustical investigation, develop a remediation plan, and measure its success, all at its own expense.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order directing the respondent tenant to comply with its rules prohibiting the smoking of cannabis on condominium property.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing but had previously claimed a medical need to smoke cannabis.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was smoking cannabis in her unit in breach of the rules and had failed to provide sufficient medical documentation to support a request for accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to immediately cease smoking cannabis in her unit.