OCAT 2022

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that she experienced unreasonable noise from the unit above hers following a renovation and that the condominium corporation failed to enforce its flooring rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal reviewed acoustical testing reports and noise logs, concluding that the evidence did not establish the noise was unreasonable or constituted a nuisance.

The Tribunal also found that the condominium corporation acted reasonably in investigating the complaints and working with the upstairs owner to mitigate potential noise sources, thereby complying with its rules.

The application was dismissed without costs.

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

The respondent provided the records late and subsequently demanded $960.50 in legal fees related to the request, threatening a lien if unpaid.

The applicant paid under duress and applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for reimbursement.

The Tribunal found the respondent waived its right to charge a fee by failing to provide a fee estimate before producing the records.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to reimburse the $960.50 fee and the $9.95 cost of the money order.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty but directed the board members to complete mandatory training and ordered the respondent to amend its records policy to comply with the Condominium Act.

The applicant condominium owner challenged a $1,449.23 chargeback levied by the respondent condominium corporation for legal costs incurred in issuing a compliance letter regarding alleged noise and harassment.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over the dispute.

The Tribunal held that the corporation acted unreasonably by escalating to a legal letter without first investigating the allegations or issuing a warning.

The corporation was ordered to reimburse the $1,449.23 chargeback and pay $200 for the applicant's filing fees.

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that water condensation dripping from upper units' air conditioners constituted a nuisance and violated the condominium's governing documents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the specific provisions cited by the applicant did not prohibit, restrict, or govern the alleged nuisance.

As the dispute did not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction over nuisance disputes, the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a former condominium board president, requested minutes of a pre-AGM board meeting.

The respondent condominium corporation admitted the meeting occurred but claimed it lacked the minutes because the corporation's solicitor had not produced them.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation's failure to ensure minutes were kept constituted an effective refusal to provide records without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to prepare and produce the minutes, and awarded the applicant $200 in costs and a $300 penalty.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a case to the Tribunal regarding a tenant's conduct of sweeping debris and water off her balcony and hanging rugs, which caused a nuisance to other residents.

The landlord failed to participate or take reasonable steps to ensure his tenant's compliance despite repeated notices.

The Tribunal found that the tenant's conduct constituted a nuisance in breach of the governing documents and that the landlord failed to fulfill his statutory obligations.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to cease the conduct, the landlord to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance, and awarded costs against both the landlord and the tenant.

The applicant condominium corporation sought full indemnity for legal costs incurred to enforce a no-smoking rule against the respondent unit owner.

The substantive issues were resolved by a consent order in which the respondent agreed to comply with the rule.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was entitled to some costs under the indemnification provisions of its by-laws and rules, the amounts claimed were disproportionate to the straightforward nature of the dispute.

The Tribunal awarded $2,500 for pre-Tribunal legal costs and $2,275 for Tribunal-related costs and fees.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The case proceeded to Stage 2 mediation, and the applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3.

The applicant failed to advance the case within the required 15-day period.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the case closed and dismissed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought a motion to add issues relating to a smoking dispute to his existing application for condominium records.

The respondent condominium corporation opposed the motion, arguing the smoking dispute was unrelated and outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the records request and the smoking dispute were not sufficiently interwoven to justify joining them in a single hearing, as they involved different evidence, witnesses, and jurisdictional considerations.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking reimbursement for moving expenses incurred due to a power outage at the respondent condominium corporation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the dispute did not relate to the condominium's governing documents or an unreasonable nuisance as defined by the regulations.

The applicant failed to provide submissions establishing jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application regarding the adequacy of condominium board meeting minutes.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the case under Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, arguing the issues were minor and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the applicant's concerns regarding redactions, missing signatures, and minor procedural errors did not render the records inadequate.

The motion to dismiss was granted.

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

After mediation reached an impasse, the applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to do so or pay the required fee within 15 days.

Pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, the tribunal ordered the case closed and dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against a unit owner for alleged inappropriate conduct related to parking and nuisance.

The respondent had parked his vehicle in a manner that impeded the corporation's snow removal operations, forcing the corporation to incur costs for off-site snow storage.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent did not breach the specific parking rules cited, his actions in impeding snow removal constituted a nuisance under the corporation's declaration.

The respondent was ordered to comply with the declaration and to reimburse the corporation for the additional snow removal costs, legal compliance costs, and a portion of the Tribunal proceeding costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to comply with noise and nuisance provisions in its governing documents.

The corporation presented evidence of repeated complaints over several years regarding loud music and television noise emanating from the respondent's unit during overnight hours.

The respondent denied making the noise, arguing the building had poor sound insulation.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached the governing documents by creating unreasonable noise that interfered with other owners' quiet enjoyment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the noise provisions and pay $3,700 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 take any further steps or pay the required fee for over 15 days.

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

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against the respondent unit owner for breaching governing documents relating to parking, storage, noise, and smoking.

The respondent failed to participate in the proceeding.

The Tribunal found the respondent in violation of the governing documents based on the applicant's uncontested evidence.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the rules and pay indemnification costs, Tribunal fees, and partial indemnity legal costs.

The applicants, owners of two units in an industrial condominium, challenged the condominium corporation's allocation and enforcement of reserved parking spots.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the corporation had the authority to lease common element parking spots, it failed to do so validly because it did not enact a supporting by-law as required by section 21(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal held that the corporation's enforcement of the parking rules was reasonable and did not constitute harassment.

The parking leases were declared unenforceable, and the corporation was ordered to pay $200 in costs to the applicants, though claims for damages were dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondents to permanently remove their dog from the premises after it bit another resident's dog.

The condominium board had declared the dog a nuisance and ordered its removal.

The Tribunal found that the board did not conduct a reasonable investigation into the incident and relied on insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal noted the dog had since been muzzled, leashed, and trained, and there were no further incidents.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the respondents due to its failure to attempt pre-hearing resolution and its unreasonable conduct.

The applicant brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking to enforce a settlement agreement.

The agreement required the respondent condominium corporation to send a letter to owners using specific wording regarding the status of the corporation's rules.

The respondent sent a letter but failed to use the agreed-upon wording.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the agreement, but concluded the breach was minor and unintentional.

The Tribunal declined to order the extensive remedies sought by the applicant, instead ordering that the decision be posted for all owners to read.

The applicant's request for reimbursement of Tribunal fees was denied because the issue could have been resolved through discussion prior to filing.

The applicant condominium owner requested two Periodic Information Certificates from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided the certificates after the 30-day deadline.

The applicant challenged the adequacy and content of the certificates and sought a penalty for the delay.

The Tribunal found that disputes over the content of the certificates fall outside its jurisdiction under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal also declined to order a penalty, finding that the respondent had a reasonable excuse for the delay due to concurrently processing a large volume of records for the applicant in another mediation.