OCAT 2022

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent owner to comply with its noise rules and to pay costs incurred in enforcing compliance.

The respondent repeatedly played loud music with heavy bass late at night, generating numerous security complaints, and ignored multiple warning letters from management and legal counsel.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the respondent in violation of the noise rules and section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the rules and awarded the corporation full indemnity for its legal costs and pre-litigation legal expenses, totaling $9,848.51.

The applicant brought a motion to join two cases she initiated against the respondent condominium corporation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

One case involved the enforcement of a settlement agreement and the other related to a request for records.

The respondent consented to the joinder.

The Tribunal found that hearing both cases jointly would allow for a more focused and efficient process, as the parties were the same and there would be overlap in witness testimony.

The motion was granted and the cases were ordered to be heard together pursuant to Rule 18.2 of the CAT Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed a dispute regarding the indemnification provisions of the condominium corporation's governing documents, naming an individual director as the respondent.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal proposed to dismiss the application as being outside its jurisdiction, noting a similar previous application by the applicant had been dismissed for the same reason.

Finding that the dispute related to a legal dispute outside its statutory mandate, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant unit owner challenged the validity of a condominium rule that grandfathered existing 'legacy cats' 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 the rule to transition into compliance while avoiding litigation from current cat owners.

The Tribunal found the rule was a reasonable transition measure and a valid exercise of the board's authority to balance communal and private interests.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant unit owner sought incident reports regarding noise complaints from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to respond within the prescribed 30-day timeline but provided the available records shortly after the applicant filed the case with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the respondent refused to provide records without a reasonable excuse, as staffing changes did not justify the delay.

A penalty of $150 was awarded against the respondent, along with $75 in filing fees.

During a condominium dispute proceeding, the parties submitted documents containing sensitive personal medical information.

The Tribunal, with the agreement of the parties, issued a confidentiality order under Rule 21.5 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal Rules of Practice to protect these documents and the recording of a cross-examination session from public disclosure.

The applicant filed a case regarding odour, smoke, and vapour issues, which was closed due to inactivity for more than 30 days.

The applicant brought a motion to reopen the case, explaining that a family medical emergency prevented their participation.

The respondent opposed the motion, citing the applicant's lack of commitment to resolving the underlying issues.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding the applicant's explanation reasonable and noting that reopening the case would not prejudice the respondent and would save the parties from having to start a new case.

The applicant brought a request for records before the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The parties settled the matter during the Stage 2 process.

The Tribunal issued a consent order closing the file and ordering the respondent to pay the applicant $75.00 for Tribunal filing fees.

The applicant condominium corporation alleged that the respondent tenant and intervenor owners failed to comply with the condominium declaration by parking an oversized truck that protruded beyond the boundaries of their parking unit.

The respondents did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that while the truck initially protruded beyond the boundaries, the respondents had adjusted its position prior to the hearing such that any remaining noncompliance was negligible.

The Tribunal declined to order strict compliance but ordered the intervenors to reimburse the applicant's $150 filing fee, as the application was necessary at the time it was filed.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to recover over $17,000 in clean-up, enforcement, and legal costs after the respondent tenants permitted their dog to repeatedly soil an exclusive-use balcony.

The unit owner (landlord) argued he should not be liable as he took prompt action to evict the tenants and the corporation had assured him it would not seek costs against him.

The Tribunal found the tenants responsible for the $3,044.60 in clean-up costs and $1,412.51 in enforcement costs, rejecting their argument that a prior settlement with the landlord barred the corporation's claim under the doctrine of res judicata.

The Tribunal also ordered the tenants to pay $200 in filing fees but denied the corporation's claim for legal costs, finding no exceptional reasons to award them.

The applicant unit owner submitted a request for records to the respondent condominium corporation.

The corporation failed to respond within the statutory 30-day period using the prescribed form and refused to provide several core records, citing privacy concerns and pandemic-related delays.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the requested records and that the corporation lacked a reasonable excuse for its refusal.

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

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted multiple requests for records including board meeting minutes, an engineering report, and a board resolution.

The respondent condominium corporation refused the engineering report citing contemplated litigation, delayed providing the meeting minutes, and withheld the resolution due to a dispute over the method of payment for a $5 fee.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to withhold the engineering report and charge the $5 fee, but could not dictate the payment method to deny the record.

The Tribunal also found the respondent effectively refused to provide the meeting minutes in a timely manner.

The respondent was ordered to provide the resolution and pay a $750 penalty plus $200 in costs.

The applicant condominium owner requested various non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided some records but failed to provide others, claiming they could not be located due to poor record-keeping by previous management.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to keep adequate records as required by section 55(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $1,500 penalty for refusing to provide records without reasonable excuse, reimburse $367.50 in excessive fees charged for the records, provide missing bank statements, and pay $200 in costs.

The applicant requested a minor correction to a final decision issued by the Condominium Authority Tribunal, seeking to amend a paragraph referencing a date on a request for records form.

The applicant wanted the exact text and checklist box from the form reproduced.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, removing the quotation marks around the date to ensure accuracy, but declined to reproduce the exact text and checklist box, noting that the Tribunal's discretion to correct decisions is not intended to accommodate a party's writing preference.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application regarding the respondent owner's storage of items and parking on common elements.

The respondent brought a motion for early dismissal, arguing the applicant's board lacked quorum to bring the application and that the issue was res judicata.

The applicant consented to the dismissal based on the lack of quorum, acknowledging that one of its two board members had ceased to be a director for failing to complete mandatory training.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the application.

The respondent in a condominium noise dispute brought a motion to dismiss the application without a hearing under section 1.41(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, arguing it was not initiated in good faith and contained false information.

The dispute centered on whether the sound of a piano being played by the respondent interfered with the applicant neighbour.

The condominium corporation, named as an intervenor, did not respond to the motion.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the application could not be dismissed as a minor issue, as there was a genuine dispute between two neighbours that fell within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested copies of the condominium corporation's legal invoices for the preceding twelve months.

The corporation refused, citing solicitor-client privilege.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while legal invoices are presumptively privileged, the presumption can be rebutted if disclosure of the fee amounts would not reveal privileged communications.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to provide the invoices, redacted to remove descriptions of services, hours billed, hourly rates, specific counsel names, and dates, leaving only the total amounts.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty against the corporation but awarded the applicant $200 in costs for Tribunal fees.

The applicant brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation for an order requiring it to enforce its noise rule against the owner of the unit above hers.

The respondent brought a motion to add the upstairs unit owner as a respondent or intervenor.

The Tribunal found that while the corporation was the proper respondent, the upstairs unit owner could be directly impacted by the decision.

The Tribunal ordered that the upstairs unit owner be added as an intervenor.

The applicant sought access to various condominium records, including board meeting minutes, legal invoices, and bank statements.

The parties reached a settlement during the Condominium Authority Tribunal's mediation stage.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide the requested records, subject to appropriate redactions under the Condominium Act, at no cost to the applicant.

The applicant, an occupant of a condominium unit, filed an application regarding the corporation's pet rules.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant was not a unit owner.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that under section 1.36 of the Condominium Act, 1998, only owners and condominium corporations have standing to apply to the Tribunal for dispute resolution.