OCAT 2024

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

The applicant failed to pay the required fee to move the case to Stage 3 within the 15-day deadline, citing family matters and related travel.

The applicant subsequently requested an extension of time to pay the fee, which the respondent opposed.

The Tribunal granted the extension, giving the applicant 7 days to pay the fee, failing which the case would be dismissed with prejudice.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, brought an application alleging that a newly installed motion-activated LED light in the common element corridor outside their unit constituted an unreasonable nuisance, annoyance, or disruption.

The respondent condominium corporation had installed the lighting for energy efficiency and safety, and had already made adjustments to the bulb's intensity and direction in response to complaints.

The Tribunal applied an objective test, finding that a reasonable owner-occupier would not consider the light unreasonable.

The application was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered not to tamper with the light fixture.

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

Upon receiving the Notice of Case, the applicant emailed it to the respondent, the Tribunal, and 83 other individuals.

One of the uninvolved recipients used the unique code in the Notice to join the case as the respondent, preventing the actual respondent from joining.

The Tribunal dismissed the case under Rule 4 of the CAT's Rules of Practice due to the applicant's improper sharing of the Notice, with leave to re-file.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged that the respondents, owners of the unit below, permitted activities causing unreasonable cooking odours in his unit, contrary to s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant provided little evidence to substantiate the claim, while the respondents provided evidence of HVAC inspections showing proper ventilation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that the odours were unreasonable or constituted a nuisance.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent unit owner breached a prior settlement agreement.

The applicant claimed the respondent's guests stole food deliveries intended for other residents and that the respondent created unreasonable noise.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over the food delivery issue as it constituted an unreasonable interference with the common elements.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent breached the agreement regarding the food deliveries and ordered compliance, but dismissed the noise complaints due to insufficient objective evidence.

The applicant was awarded $125 for Tribunal fees.

The applicant brought a motion to reopen a case that was closed due to 30 days of inactivity during the negotiation stage.

The applicant demonstrated that personal reasons prevented payment of the fee to advance the case, and contacted the Tribunal as soon as possible.

The respondents and intervenor did not oppose the motion.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it fair to reopen the case as the respondents would not be prejudiced.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought an application against a neighbouring unit owner, alleging that second-hand smoke was migrating into his unit and causing a nuisance.

The respondent was a legacy smoker exempted from the condominium's general smoking prohibition, subject to not causing a nuisance.

Relying on an odour migration assessment and security logs, the Tribunal found that the respondent's unit was the probable source of the smoke odours and that the migration constituted an unreasonable nuisance.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to seal the cracks around her door and furnace at her own expense to abate the nuisance, and to reimburse the applicant's Tribunal filing fees.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to cease scattering garlic, bleach, eggs, and other substances around her unit and common elements.

The respondent, who claimed the substances protected her from witchcraft, did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the persistent and unreasonable odours caused by the respondent's actions constituted a nuisance under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent was ordered to cease the activity and pay $1,700 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a records request for board meeting minutes and the reserve fund plan.

The respondent condominium corporation provided the minutes two days late and without the mandatory form, and stated the reserve fund plan was not yet approved.

The applicant alleged the minutes were inadequate because they omitted decisions regarding a new property manager and reserve fund study.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent did not refuse the records without a reasonable excuse and that the provided minutes met the standard of adequacy.

The application was dismissed with no order for costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought compliance orders against a tenant for creating a nuisance through cannabis and tobacco smoke, and against the unit owners for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the tenant's compliance.

The Tribunal found that the tenant breached the corporation's rules and the Condominium Act, and that the owners failed to take timely and decisive action to obtain compliance.

However, because the tenant had vacated the unit prior to the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal declined to issue compliance orders.

The owners were ordered to pay $2,560 in costs and damages to the corporation.

The applicant unit owner sought draft reserve fund studies and alleged that the respondent condominium corporation's financial records were inadequate.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal held that draft documents do not constitute records of the corporation under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998, and denied the request for drafts and a penalty.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent's records relating to reserve fund planning and garage repairs were inadequate because they failed to provide clear and consistent information.

The respondent was ordered to provide a detailed report on garage expenditures, but no costs were awarded.

The applicant condominium owner applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation contravened a settlement agreement regarding the provision of various condominium records.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had failed to comply with several terms of the agreement, including failing to provide updated records, a reconciliation of costs, and an impression of the corporate seal.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the outstanding records and directed the current board members to complete mandatory director training due to their lack of understanding of their statutory obligations.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against a unit owner for failing to comply with its pet rules, which prohibit dogs weighing over 25 pounds.

The respondent did not participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had kept an oversized dog in her unit and allowed a visitor to bring an oversized dog onto the property.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the pet rules and awarded the applicant compensation for pre-litigation enforcement costs, partial indemnity legal costs, and the Tribunal filing fee.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

After the case proceeded to Stage 3, the applicant informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

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

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal naming a property management company and an individual as respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it lacks jurisdiction to hear applications against condominium managers or management service providers under section 1.36 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Despite being granted an extension, the applicant made no submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice as it had no legal power to hear or decide the issues.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner and his tenants to comply with noise and nuisance rules.

The corporation alleged the tenants created unreasonable noise in their unit and engaged in disruptive conduct on the common elements.

The Tribunal found that the tenants' noise in the unit constituted a nuisance contrary to section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, but their conduct on the common elements did not.

The Tribunal further held that the unit owner failed to take reasonable steps to ensure his tenants' compliance under section 119(2) of the Act.

The owner was ordered to take specific enforcement steps and pay $4,700 in costs.

The applicant brought a motion requesting the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) to order the respondent condominium corporation to stop a mediation and arbitration process commenced under section 132(4) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent brought a countermotion to dismiss the case, arguing the issues fell outside the CAT's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the application as it related to indemnification for costs incurred in enforcing an anti-harassment rule, which falls under provisions governing nuisance activities.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's motion to stop the arbitration, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to make orders regarding external dispute resolution processes.

Both motions were dismissed.

The applicant, a unit owner, submitted a records request for the audio-visual recording of the condominium corporation's 2023 virtual annual general meeting.

The respondent corporation denied the request, stating it did not possess the recording, though its management company later obtained a copy from the platform provider.

The Tribunal found that the recording was not a record of the corporation under the Condominium Act, as it was not created at the corporation's behest.

The application was dismissed, and no penalty or costs were awarded, though the applicant was granted a two-hour window to view the recording at the management office.

The applicant condominium owner sought to enforce a settlement agreement against the respondent condominium corporation regarding noise from the unit above.

The Tribunal found that the corporation had complied with the enforceable terms of the agreement by sending a warning letter and conducting noise testing.

The Tribunal held that the remaining terms requiring the corporation to force the upstairs owners to change their flooring were unenforceable because the upstairs owners were not parties to the original proceeding or the settlement agreement, violating procedural fairness.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, challenged the respondent condominium corporation's visitor parking policy and its enforcement actions against their vehicle.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the policy, which restricted visitor parking and required registration without being formally enacted as a rule under the Condominium Act, 1998, was an improperly implemented rule.

Consequently, the policy and the corporation's actions to enforce it, including ticketing the applicant's vehicle, were invalid and unenforceable.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to cease enforcing the policy until properly enacted and awarded costs to the applicant.