OCAT 2022

The applicant in a condominium noise dispute brought a motion to file a late acoustical report after the document disclosure deadline had passed.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing prejudice and delay, while the intervenor did not object.

The Tribunal applied the test for late evidence, finding that while the report could have been obtained earlier, its potential probative value regarding whether the noise was unreasonable justified its admission.

The Tribunal granted the motion, noting that the respondent would not be unduly prejudiced and could request an adjournment to respond.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring a tenant to cease smoking cannabis in his unit, alleging the resulting smoke and odour violated the condominium's declaration and the Condominium Act.

The tenant did not participate in the hearing.

The unit owner supported the corporation's application and demonstrated he had taken reasonable steps to obtain the tenant's compliance, including issuing an eviction notice.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the tenant in violation of the declaration and ordered him to immediately cease smoking cannabis in the unit.

The Tribunal also ordered the tenant to pay $150 in costs and $450 in compensation to the corporation.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application against the condominium corporation alleging that a newly installed spotlight-style security light was shining into her bedroom and causing an unreasonable nuisance.

The respondent argued the light could not be the source due to its angle and proposed other sources.

The Tribunal found that the light constituted an unreasonable nuisance and that the applicant presented credible circumstantial evidence that the new spotlight was the source.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to replace the spotlight with a baffled light directed downwards and to reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application alleging the respondent unit owner and her tenant failed to comply with a declaration prohibiting Doberman dogs.

The tenant kept a dog that appeared to be a Doberman mix, and the owner failed to provide veterinary documentation confirming the breed when requested.

The Tribunal found noncompliance with the declaration and ordered the removal of the dog within 21 days, unless a satisfactory letter from a licensed veterinarian confirming the dog is not a prohibited breed is provided.

The respondent was also ordered to pay $1,700 in costs.

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

After several delays due to the applicant's medical emergency and a change in representation, the mediation reached an impasse.

The applicant was given a deadline to move the case to Stage 3 - Tribunal Decision but failed to do so.

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

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant owner's application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant disputed a chargeback for a lawyer's letter demanding he cease harassing a security guard and causing noise disturbances.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the dispute involved the enforcement of a noise nuisance rule, which falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction under O. Reg. 179/17, along with related indemnification provisions.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, erected a wooden barrier in her exclusive-use backyard to protect her dogs.

The respondent condominium corporation ordered its removal, characterizing it as 'debris, refuse, or garbage' under its rules, and later demanded its removal under threat of unilateral action.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the barrier was not garbage or debris and was not being 'stored.' However, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to rule on whether the applicant was entitled to alter the common elements under section 98 of the Condominium Act.

The applicant was awarded $200 for her Tribunal filing fees.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, complained of noise and vibration from the unit above her following the installation of vinyl flooring.

During the hearing stage, the Tribunal considered whether the upstairs owners should be added as parties to the proceeding.

Finding that the upstairs owners could be subject to remedial action and were therefore directly affected by the proceeding, the Tribunal ordered that they be added as intervenors.

The applicant condominium corporation initiated a proceeding alleging that the respondent caused smoking odours to emanate from her unit, creating a nuisance and violating the corporation's no-smoking rule.

During mediation, the parties agreed to a consent order resolving the substantive issues, with the respondent agreeing not to allow smoking in her unit, balcony, or common elements.

The issue of costs was deferred to a separate adjudication.

The applicant unit owner sought access to proxy records from the respondent condominium corporation's annual general meeting.

The applicant disputed the fees estimated by the respondent, arguing that proxies are core records and should be provided without cost, and challenged the labour and printing rates.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal held that proxies are non-core records subject to fees.

The Tribunal found the estimated labour rate of $30 per hour to be reasonable but ordered the printing costs reduced to $0.012 per page.

The applicant was awarded her $200 filing fee, but her request for a penalty was denied.

The applicant unit owner brought a proceeding against the respondent condominium corporation, seeking damages for its failure to address noise complaints regarding the unit above his.

The condominium corporation brought a motion to add the owner of the unit above as an intervenor in the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the unit owner was directly affected by the hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the unit owner could be liable for damages or subject to remedial orders if a nuisance was found, making his participation necessary.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought a motion during mediation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding his request for records.

The respondent condominium corporation had served a Notice of Mediation alleging the applicant's repeated records requests were vexatious and an abuse of process, seeking to prevent further requests.

The applicant sought to add these issues to the Tribunal proceeding and argued the respondent's actions were retaliatory.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over whether an owner is entitled to make records requests and added the respondent's issues to the dispute.

The Tribunal declined to find the applicant's requests vexatious at this stage and found insufficient evidence that the respondent acted in a retaliatory or oppressive manner.

The applicant submitted a dispute to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding alleged errors in the condominium declaration's assignment of common expense fees and sought the removal of associated NSF and lien fees.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that under section 109 of the Condominium Act, 1998, applications to amend a declaration must be made to the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over both the declaration issues and the associated fee disputes, and dismissed the application.

In a dispute over a condominium board's order to remove a dangerous dog, the respondents brought a motion to add the owner of the attacked dog as a party.

The respondents argued the owner's negligence caused the incident and she should be liable for costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the core issue was the reasonableness of the board's decision, and the owner of the attacked dog had no direct interest or liability for costs that would justify adding her as a party.

The applicant condominium corporation and the respondent unit owner agreed to settle their dispute during Stage 2 mediation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to retain a commercial cleaner for twice-weekly deep cleaning of his unit to prevent unreasonable odours and pests.

The order also affirmed the applicant's right to inspect the unit and, if necessary, perform remediation at the respondent's expense.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought records related to a special assessment refund and responses to repair and investigation requests.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the requested records did not exist and that the condominium corporation could not be compelled to create or produce non-existent records.

Although the applicant did not obtain new records, the Tribunal awarded him his filing fees and legal costs because the corporation's initial confusing explanations necessitated the legal expense.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought an exemption from a newly enacted 'no dog rule' for a dog she had placed a deposit on prior to the rule's effective date.

The condominium corporation denied the exemption because the dog was not kept in the building before the deadline.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the board's interpretation and application of the rule was reasonable and made in good faith, applying the business judgment rule.

The application was dismissed without costs.

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

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the corporation to provide redacted proxy forms from a recent meeting and to create a table outlining maintenance and repair responsibilities for distribution to all owners.

The corporation also agreed to comply with future records requests in accordance with the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to mediation but did not settle.

The applicant requested a transfer to Stage 3 Adjudication but missed the deadline to pay the required fee, leading to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to health issues and communication delays, and provided proof that her representative was authorized to act on her behalf.

The Tribunal found the representative was properly authorized and denied the motion to dismiss, allowing the application to proceed to Stage 3.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application regarding alleged noise disturbances caused by the respondent unit owner.

The respondent requested an adjournment of over three months for medical reasons, supported by a doctor's note.

The applicant opposed a lengthy adjournment without an interim order prohibiting the noise.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on terms, requiring the respondent to provide an updated medical note and stipulating that the adjournment would be lifted if other cases initiated by the respondent proceeded.

The request for an interim order was denied as it would effectively determine the main issue in dispute.