OCAT 2023

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to remove the respondent tenant's emotional support animal, a large dog, alleging the dog posed a safety risk due to lunging and barking incidents.

The Tribunal found that the incidents were minor, the dog was not aggressive, and the applicant failed to establish undue hardship.

The Tribunal also refused to enforce conditions unilaterally imposed by the applicant, finding the applicant breached its procedural duty to accommodate by failing to engage in good faith discussions with the respondent.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay 60% of the respondent's legal costs.

The applicants and the respondent condominium corporation reached a settlement regarding excessive noise emanating from the condominium's fitness room.

The parties requested that their agreement be incorporated into a Consent Order.

The Tribunal issued the Consent Order, which required the respondent to provide an acoustic testing report, change fitness room hours, remove certain equipment, implement noise-dampening modifications, and adopt a noise enforcement policy.

The respondent was also ordered to pay $400 in costs to the applicants.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application before the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide adequate and complete records in response to two requests.

The Tribunal found that the corporation had satisfied its obligations regarding the reserve fund study and that redactions in meeting minutes were not excessive, but ordered the corporation to provide a missing by-law, amend a meeting minute to reflect a director's appointment date, provide written reasons for redactions, and reconcile the fees charged for records.

Several of the applicant's claims were dismissed as duplicative of previous Tribunal orders or outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant unit owner brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation for failing to provide requested records, including board meeting minutes, a maintenance and repair chart, and records related to fence repairs, mice, and mold.

The Tribunal found that the corporation failed to provide the July 2021 meeting minutes and fence repair records without a reasonable excuse, noting a lack of diligence and oversight by the board.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the maintenance chart, mice, and mold records, as those records did not exist and the corporation was not obligated to create them.

The corporation was ordered to pay a $750 penalty and $200 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondents to comply with its rules respecting smoking.

The parties reached a settlement during the mediation stage of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution process.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the occupant to immediately comply with the smoking rules and the owner to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance, along with an order for costs of $3,000 payable to the applicant.

The applicant filed a tribunal application because the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide Board Response Forms within 30 days of a records request.

During negotiations, the respondent provided the forms and offered to reimburse the $25 filing fee.

The applicant refused to settle, demanding an additional $7.10 for their proportionate share of the respondent's legal fees, and paid $50 to move the matter to mediation.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the $25 filing fee but dismissed the applicant's claim for the $50 mediation fee and the $7.10.

The tribunal also dismissed the respondent's claim for $2,137.50 in legal fees, finding the amount disproportionate.

The applicant, a self-represented condominium owner, brought a motion to disqualify the respondent condominium corporation's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest and civil fraud.

The applicant argued that counsel was in a conflict because a colleague at his law firm was a member of the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to disqualify counsel to prevent an abuse of process under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and its Rules of Practice.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no clear evidence of a conflict of interest, as the Tribunal member had no involvement in the case and institutional safeguards were in place, nor was there any evidence of fraud.

The applicant unit owner applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding unreasonable banging noises from the building's plumbing system.

The applicant argued the noise interfered with her peaceful enjoyment of the property.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the issue related to the corporation's obligation to repair and maintain common elements under section 89 of the Condominium Act, rather than an activity creating unreasonable noise under section 117(2).

As the Tribunal's jurisdiction over noise is limited to activities carried on in a unit or common elements, it lacked jurisdiction to order a remedy for structural or plumbing defects.

The applicant condominium owner sought damages from the respondent neighbour for the cost of an air purifier, alleging the respondent breached the condominium's smoking rule.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The condominium corporation intervened but took no position.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's continued smoking and failure to prevent smoke migration violated the rules and compelled the applicant to purchase the air purifier.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $2,485.99 in damages and $150 in costs.

The applicant condominium owner challenged the fees estimated by the respondent condominium corporation for the production of non-core records.

The Tribunal found the $600 labour fee to be a reasonable estimate but denied the $48 photocopying fee because the records were requested in electronic format.

Due to the applicant's persistently unreasonable and disruptive conduct during the proceeding, the Tribunal awarded the respondent $4,800 in legal costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application against the condominium corporation and the unit owner above him regarding intermittent late-night noise.

The Tribunal found that the upstairs neighbour repeatedly violated the condominium's rules against disruptive noise and that the condominium corporation failed to take reasonable steps to enforce its rules.

However, due to the applicant's aggressive and threatening behaviour towards the condominium's management and board, the Tribunal declined to award damages, though it ordered the upstairs neighbour to comply with the rules and the condominium corporation to publish the decision.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a dispute over an agreement to modify the curb of a parking spot under section 98 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that its jurisdiction under O. Reg. 179/17 is limited to disputes relating to provisions in the governing documents that prohibit, restrict, or otherwise govern parking.

The applicant confirmed the issues were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

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

During mediation, it was discovered that the applicant's representative was not a listed director, nor was he a licensed legal practitioner.

Following the appointment of a new board of directors, the board informed the Tribunal that the application had been filed without their knowledge or approval and requested its withdrawal.

The Tribunal ordered the case dismissed and closed.

The applicant condominium owner sought to add three additional issues to a dispute regarding a records request.

The proposed issues related to alleged false statements, non-compliance with a prior tribunal order, and breaches of confidentiality during mediation in a previous case.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal declined to add the issues, finding they related to a previously decided case and that enforcement of prior orders must be pursued in the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application regarding noise complaints about barking dogs in the respondents' unit.

The parties agreed to settle the matter by way of a consent order.

The tribunal issued the consent order requiring the tenant to vacate the unit or remove the dogs by a specified date, with the applicant absorbing all associated costs.