OCAT 2024

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The parties subsequently reached a private and confidential settlement agreement that resolved the issues in dispute.

Pursuant to Rule 43.1(b) of the CAT's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal ordered the case closed and directed that all documents and messages shared during the negotiation and mediation stages remain private and confidential.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against a unit owner for harassing staff and management and for failing to comply with a new pet rule regarding building entry and exit.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's pattern of abusive emails constituted an annoyance and disruption under the Condominium Act regulations, violating the corporation's harassment rule.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease all abusive communications, comply with the pet rule, and pay $1,200 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding access to records related to a major renovation project.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with multiple deadlines and requirements in the settlement agreement, including contacting contractors for engineering materials and communicating the results to the applicant.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to take specific steps to comply with the agreement and to reimburse the applicant's filing fee, but denied the applicant's request for penalties.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records and that some provided records were inadequate.

The requested records included water bills, budgets, meeting minutes, and records of owners and leased units.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had provided all requested records and that the records were adequate under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal concluded there was no refusal without a reasonable excuse and dismissed the application without costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation refused to provide requested records without a reasonable excuse and sought a penalty.

The requested records related to significant repairs to another unit following a roof leak, a related legal settlement, and special assessments.

The Tribunal found that the respondent did not refuse the records without a reasonable excuse, as the requested documents either constituted requests for information rather than records, or were exempt from examination under s. 55(4)(c) of the Condominium Act because they related to specific units or owners.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order directing the respondent unit owner to cease creating a nuisance through second-hand smoke.

The respondent, who had registered as a smoker under the condominium's rules, frequently smoked on her balcony, causing unreasonable odours to migrate to neighbouring units.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the smoke migration constituted an unreasonable nuisance under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent not to smoke on her balcony between March 1 and November 30 of each year and awarded the applicant $2,005 in costs and fees.

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

The respondent did not join the case, and it proceeded as a default case.

Before any documents or evidence were disclosed, the applicant informed the Tribunal that the issue had been resolved and requested to withdraw the case.

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

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application alleging the respondent tenant failed to comply with a prior settlement agreement.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached multiple terms of the agreement, including smoking on common elements, parking violations, and causing damage to the parking gate.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the settlement agreement and to pay compensation and legal costs incurred by the applicant.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 Mediation regarding the applicant's dog.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a Consent Order permitting the dog to return to the applicant's unit subject to strict conditions, including muzzling, short-leashing, and mandatory obedience training.

The order also outlined conditions under which the dog must be permanently removed from the premises.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

After the case proceeded to Stage 2 mediation, the applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fee within 15 days.

The Tribunal ordered the case closed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, alleged their neighbour created a nuisance due to dog waste odour and that the condominium corporation failed to enforce its rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found insufficient evidence of unreasonable odour but determined the neighbour's use of chemical cleaners on the shared privacy fence constituted a nuisance.

The Tribunal ordered the neighbour to move the litter box, cease allowing dogs to urinate on the fence, and stop spraying chemicals.

The Tribunal found the condominium corporation adequately investigated the complaints despite communication gaps.

The applicants were awarded $100 in damages and $200 in Tribunal fees.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding outdoor lighting issues that had already been adjudicated in a previous case.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of its Rules of Practice, noting that the appropriate venue to enforce an existing Tribunal order is the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation contravened a settlement agreement regarding the correction of board meeting minutes.

While the respondent included the exact text required by the agreement, it also added contextual commentary explaining that the agreed text was inaccurate based on legal advice and further investigation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent complied with the specific terms of the settlement agreement and the additional text did not constitute a contravention.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging a light nuisance because the condominium corporation turned off power to their commercial unit, preventing them from using their lights.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the absence of power does not constitute a light nuisance within the meaning of the legislation, and therefore the dispute fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a temporary fence installed in the parking garage near their parking spot.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice because the applicant failed to identify any provision in the condominium corporation's governing documents that was being violated.

The Tribunal concluded it had no authority to issue an order on the issue.

The applicant condominium corporation and respondent unit owners reached a settlement in Stage 2 Mediation regarding noise complaints.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondents to comply with the corporation's governing documents regarding unreasonable noise.

The order established a specific procedure for substantiating future noise complaints, including requirements for multiple independent complaints, audio/video recordings, or real-time observation by corporation representatives.

The corporation also agreed to propose an acoustical test to the primary complainants at its own expense.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to cease causing unreasonable noise.

The respondent had been banging on walls and shouting at the owner of the unit above him in retaliation for normal walking noises.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent's behaviour constituted a substantial and unreasonable nuisance in breach of the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules.

The respondent was ordered to permanently cease the noise-making and to pay $4,200 in costs and filing fees.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that cigarette smoke and odour from the neighbouring respondent's unit constituted a nuisance under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and that the condominium corporation failed to enforce its rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the smoke odour from the respondent's unit was unreasonable and substantially interfered with the applicant's enjoyment of her unit.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to permanently cease smoking in his unit.

The Tribunal also found that the condominium corporation had taken reasonable steps to investigate and address the complaints, fulfilling its obligations under the Act.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for core and non-core records.

The respondent condominium corporation provided the core records but refused the non-core records, arguing the request was not on the proper form, was too broad, and that the records either did not exist or were exempt due to contemplated litigation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent refused some of the non-core records without a reasonable excuse, as the request clearly identified the desired elevator maintenance records.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the specific elevator records, pay a $1,500 penalty, and reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.

The applicant unit 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.

By consent, the tribunal ordered the respondent to provide redacted legal invoices showing only the total amounts, and to reimburse the applicant's $75.00 tribunal filing fee.

No penalty or further costs were awarded.