OCAT 2023

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought two applications to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested election records and breached a prior settlement agreement regarding virtual election procedures.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had provided the records in its possession and did not refuse the request without reasonable excuse, thus no penalty was warranted.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the respondent complied with the settlement agreement's terms concerning the display of voting results and the appointment of scrutineers.

Both applications were dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to mutual delays.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to comply with noise and nuisance rules, alleging the respondent played music at excessive volumes.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing but had previously claimed the music was to drown out noises from neighbours.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the respondent's conduct constituted an unreasonable nuisance in violation of the condominium's declaration, rules, and section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease creating excessive noise and to pay $5,805 in costs and compensation to the applicant.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application alleging unreasonable nuisance and smoke odor caused by the respondent's tenant.

The Tribunal brought a motion to determine whether the tenant should be added as a party to the proceeding.

The Tribunal ordered that the tenant be added as a party because the requested remedy would directly affect his rights.

The Tribunal declined the applicant's request to add her parents as parties, noting they could participate as witnesses.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 46 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice to correct alleged factual errors in a previous decision dismissing their case.

The tribunal noted that Rule 46.3 requires such requests to be made within 30 days of receiving the decision.

Because the applicant brought the motion more than 30 days after receiving the decision and a previous motion order, the request was out of time.

The motion was denied without addressing the requested changes.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner and his tenant to cease smoking in their unit and on exclusive use common elements due to smoke migration.

The respondent had a legacy exemption allowing him to smoke, provided he took reasonable steps to prevent smoke migration.

The Tribunal found that smoke continued to migrate to the common elements and other units, and the respondent failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent and his tenant to immediately cease smoking in the unit and on the exclusive use common elements, and ordered the respondent to pay $2,500 in compensation and $3,200 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce a rule prohibiting the parking of commercial vehicles and vehicles with advertising on common elements or exclusive use areas against a tenant who parked his work truck in his driveway.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the rule was not enacted to prevent an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the property or to promote safety, as required by section 58(1) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal concluded the rule was unenforceable and ordered the corporation to refrain from enforcing it against the respondent and intervenors.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent breached a prior settlement agreement by failing to pay $75.

The parties agreed to settle the matter in Stage 3 of the Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to pay the $75 plus postage, as well as reimburse the applicant for the $125 filing fee.

The applicant filed a records dispute with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the core issues fell outside its jurisdiction and the requested records had already been provided.

The applicant failed to participate in the mediation process or respond to the Notice, instead communicating outside the platform and seeking an adjournment.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not act in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application against the respondent owner of the unit above her, alleging unreasonable noise and nuisance caused by the respondent's family and visiting grandchildren.

The applicant complained of thumping, running, and children playing.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the noises described were consistent with everyday living and did not constitute a substantial and unreasonable interference with the applicant's quiet enjoyment.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The applicant brought a motion to correct or clarify a previous Tribunal decision, arguing the decision was wrong and seeking a substantive change.

The respondent also submitted a request to clarify, seeking permission to make submissions on costs.

The Tribunal dismissed both motions.

The applicant's request was denied because Rule 46.7 does not permit substantive changes to a decision.

The respondent's request was denied because reopening the hearing to take submissions on costs that could have been made during the hearing would not accord with the Tribunal's mandate for an efficient process.

The applicants, unit owners in the respondent condominium corporation, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding an alleged odour nuisance following a flood.

The Tribunal issued a notice of intent to dismiss, noting the core issue was flood damage and remediation, not a nuisance within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found the dispute was fundamentally about the corporation's obligation to repair and notify owners, and that it engaged section 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, which falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium owner, submitted a records request for incident reports about himself.

The respondent condominium corporation refused the request, citing the exemption for records related to actual or contemplated litigation under section 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the requested records were directly related to an ongoing arbitration between the parties regarding the applicant's alleged behaviour.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding the respondent was justified in refusing the records.

The Tribunal declined to award costs to either party due to inappropriate conduct by both sides during the proceedings.

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

The respondent agreed to provide some records at no cost, some at a cost, and refused others.

The Tribunal found that the respondent refused to provide certain records without a reasonable excuse, although the applicant's voluminous requests contributed to overwhelming the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested records, pay a penalty of $275, and pay costs of $125.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a bed bug infestation originating from a neighbour's unit, alleging the condominium corporation failed to respond.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.

The applicant argued that section 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998 prohibits conditions likely to cause injury or damage.

The Tribunal held that its jurisdiction is limited to disputes falling under section 117(2) of the Act, which deals with specific nuisances, annoyances, or disruptions governed by the condominium's governing documents.

As the applicant did not identify any provisions in the governing documents relating to infestations, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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

After being given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3, the applicant failed to take any steps to do so for over 15 days.

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

The applicants, condominium unit owners, sought an order prohibiting their neighbours from smoking inside and outside their unit, alleging the smoke migration constituted a nuisance.

They also sought an order compelling the condominium corporation to enforce its governing documents.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the condominium corporation had taken reasonable steps to investigate and mitigate the smoke migration, including retaining engineers and completing sealing work.

The Tribunal concluded that the remaining smoke did not constitute an unreasonable nuisance under the Condominium Act, as smoking was not prohibited by the corporation's rules.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding the procedure for records requests.

The agreement designated a specific employee at the condominium's management company to handle the applicant's requests.

The respondent subsequently changed its records request procedure, and the designated employee later resigned when the management company was acquired.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent technically breached the agreement before the employee's resignation, the breach was de minimis.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the specific term of the settlement agreement became frustrated and impossible to perform due to the employee's departure and the management company's acquisition.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, brought a motion to clarify and expand the scope of records requested from the respondent condominium corporation, and to penalize the respondent for an alleged incident of intimidation.

The Tribunal restricted the scope of the records to specific accounting documents related to three projects, finding that expanding the scope beyond what was agreed upon during mediation would be unfair.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to include the alleged intimidation incident, as it was outside the scope of the records hearing.

The applicant, a unit owner and director of the respondent condominium corporation, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking access to corporate records to fulfill his duties as a director under section 37 of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal raised a preliminary issue regarding its jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The Tribunal found that its jurisdiction over record disputes is limited to requests made by owners solely related to their interests as owners.

Because the applicant sought the records to fulfill his directorial duties, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application without costs.

The applicant's resident parked his vehicle in the condominium's underground parking without displaying a parking pass and was ticketed and towed.

The applicant sought reimbursement for the ticket, towing costs, and tribunal fees.

The Tribunal found that while issuing a ticket was a reasonable enforcement of the parking rules, towing the vehicle without warning was unreasonable given the resident had recently moved in.

The condominium corporation was ordered to reimburse the towing costs and tribunal fees.