OCAT 2022

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested various core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to provide the records and did not participate in the Condominium Authority Tribunal hearing, citing an unrelated dispute over a fire incident as its reason for withholding the documents.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the records and that the respondent had no reasonable excuse for its refusal.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the records, pay a $4,000 penalty for its unacceptable conduct, and reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.

The applicant, a condominium owner, submitted a request for records seeking copies of engineering reports related to well data collection, humidity probes, and weeping tile scoping.

The respondent condominium corporation refused the request, stating the documents were not records of the corporation.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents were preliminary data collection reports prepared by a subcontractor for the corporation's retained engineering firm, and had not yet been reviewed or accepted by the board.

Consequently, the documents were not yet records of the corporation under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The application was dismissed without penalty or costs.

The respondents in a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) application brought a motion to stay or adjourn the CAT proceeding pending the resolution of a related application they filed with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The underlying dispute involved the condominium corporation's enforcement of breed and weight restrictions against a resident's service dog.

The Tribunal applied the factors for staying multiple proceedings and found that the CAT application was ready to proceed, the HRTO application had not yet been served, and the CAT had jurisdiction to resolve the human rights issues.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant made a request for condominium records from the respondent corporation.

The parties agreed to settle the case during Stage 2 mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order resolving the dispute and closing the case with no opportunity to reopen.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 3.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that the issues in dispute had been resolved and requested to withdraw the case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 43.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation and the respondent unit owners reached a settlement during the mediation stage of the Condominium Authority Tribunal process.

The parties agreed to a consent order resolving disputes over smoking, throwing objects from the terrace, pet waste, storage, and noise nuisances.

The respondents also agreed to pay $12,500 in costs to the condominium corporation.

The Tribunal issued the consent order under section 1.47 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant, a condominium owner, requested shared facilities committee meeting minutes from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to reply within the prescribed 30-day timeline using the required form, which the Tribunal deemed a refusal without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to seek out and provide any additional minutes not yet disclosed.

Given the respondent's repeated failure to provide records in this and a previous case, the Tribunal awarded a $2,000 penalty and $200 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought original draft minutes and audio recordings of the corporation's AGMs to prove alleged inaccuracies in the approved minutes.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal held that original draft minutes are a work product and not records of the corporation.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant was not entitled to the audio recordings because the request was not made for a purpose related to his interests as an owner having regard to the purposes of the Condominium Act, but rather to pursue a personal dispute over minor wording preferences.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

Before any documents or evidence were disclosed in Stage 3, the applicant requested to withdraw the case.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 43.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation applied for an order requiring the respondent tenants and intervenor owner to remove material stored in a parking unit, which violated the corporation's declaration and rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the stored material was not a motor vehicle, constituting a breach of the governing documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents and intervenor to remove the material within 21 days, failing which the corporation could remove it and charge back the costs, and awarded $150 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant unit owner requested condominium records, including notices of leases and meeting proxies/ballots.

The respondent condominium corporation claimed it had no notices of leases because owners had not submitted 'Form 5s', and quoted $453 to produce the meeting records.

The Tribunal found the corporation failed to maintain adequate records under section 83 of the Condominium Act, 1998, as no specific form is required for lease notices.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to create and provide the record, pay a $750 penalty for refusing records without a reasonable excuse, reduced the fees for the meeting records to $182.40, and awarded $200 in costs to the applicant.

The applicants submitted two applications to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records dispute and a noise nuisance.

The Tribunal proposed to join the applications under section 1.37(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Applying the balance of convenience factors, the Tribunal found the issues were intertwined and joining them would save costs and time.

The Tribunal ordered the cases merged.

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a violent altercation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant appeared to be an occupant rather than an owner, and therefore lacked standing under s. 1.36 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Furthermore, the dispute related to conditions or activities likely to cause injury or damage under s. 117(1) of the Act, which is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction pursuant to O. Reg. 179/17.

The application was dismissed as being filed for an improper purpose.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's case regarding the adequacy of records, arguing the application was filed late and the request was therefore abandoned under section 13.10 of Ontario Regulation 48/01.

The tribunal found that the applicant filed the case within the required six-month period from delivering the request for records.

The motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached the confidentiality provision of a settlement agreement by disclosing details of a previous Condominium Authority Tribunal case to owners.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent's communication shared confidential information from the mediation stage and misrepresented the Tribunal's process, it did not disclose the specific details or terms of the settlement agreement itself.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was no contravention of the settlement agreement and dismissed the application.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring the production of bank statements.

The respondent provided the records shortly after the agreed-upon deadline.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had complied with the agreement, albeit late, and that the delay was minor and resulted from confusion over the method of delivery.

The applicant unit owner requested various records from the respondent condominium corporation, including monthly financial statements of the Shared Facility Committee (SFC), SFC meeting minutes, and bidding documents for a new management company.

The corporation refused the monthly financial statements, claiming the owner was only entitled to audited annual statements, and initially refused the bidding documents citing confidentiality before later offering them for examination.

The Tribunal found that the SFC monthly financial statements are records of the corporation to which the owner is entitled.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the corporation did not refuse the records without a reasonable excuse, given a recent management transition and genuine confusion over entitlement to shared facility records.

The corporation was ordered to provide the financial statements at no cost and allow examination of the bidding documents for a set fee, and to pay the applicant's $200 filing fee.

The applicant alleged that the respondent condominium corporation failed to comply with a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the agreement by failing to pay a $75 reimbursement within the 14-day deadline and by providing unapproved draft meeting minutes instead of approved minutes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the approved minutes, confirm the payment was recorded correctly, and pay the applicant's $125 filing fees.

The applicant's requests for fines and policy changes were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed two cases with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding unreasonable noise and vibration, which were similar to an ongoing case.

The Tribunal proposed adjourning the new cases pending the outcome of the ongoing case.

The applicant requested an adjournment for medical reasons.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment until August 15, 2022, based on the medical documentation provided, and deferred the decision on whether to merge or further delay the cases.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal disputing a chargeback issued by the respondent condominium corporation for legal expenses.

The chargeback arose after the applicant's representative allegedly made public statements about the condominium's management.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the dispute related to financial management and legal expenses, which fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Ontario Regulation 179/17.