OCAT 2024

The applicant condominium owner sought an order prohibiting the respondent from smoking on her porch, alleging the migrating smoke constituted a nuisance.

The respondent brought preliminary motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for a confidentiality order, both of which were denied.

The Tribunal found that the condominium rules did not prohibit smoking and that the frequency and amount of smoke migrating into the applicant's unit when his windows were open did not amount to a substantial and unreasonable interference.

The Tribunal also found that the condominium corporation took reasonable steps to investigate and address the complaints.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Tribunal alleging the respondent owner failed to comply with pet rules by allowing her large dog to be off-leash and out of control on common elements.

Following the application, incidents involving alleged injuries to residents occurred, raising jurisdictional questions under section 117 of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal found it retained jurisdiction because the central issue remained rule compliance, which could be determined independently of the injury allegations.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent breached the pet rules and ordered her to ensure the dog is tightly leashed and controlled by a capable person at all times on common elements, awarding partial pre-application costs and filing fees to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

Prior to the scheduled video conference hearing, the applicant informed the Tribunal that she wished to withdraw her case.

The respondent had no objection to the withdrawal.

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 sought costs against the respondent unit owners after the parties settled a dispute regarding the respondents' non-compliance with a no-smoking rule.

The applicant claimed full indemnity for its pre-litigation and tribunal costs.

The tribunal found that the respondents' conduct caused delays and additional expenses, justifying a costs award, but determined that full indemnity was disproportionate.

The respondents were ordered to pay $4,696.50 in costs, and their cross-claim for costs was dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order directing the respondent unit owner to remove a dog from his unit, as the governing documents prohibit pets.

The respondent claimed the dog was an emotional support animal required for a disability.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had a disability and was entitled to keep his dog as an accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal found the respondent breached the rules by temporarily bringing a second dog onto the property.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with certain conditions regarding his dog and awarded the applicant $3,000 in costs due to the respondent's conduct causing delays in the proceeding.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 3.

The applicant subsequently 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 Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The respondent in a condominium dispute brought a motion requesting an indefinite adjournment of the hearing due to an emergency surgery and ongoing medical issues.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal denied the request, noting that the medical documentation provided did not meet the minimum standards set out in the Tribunal's Practice Direction and that the respondent had demonstrated the ability to maintain multiple other legal proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the case to resume and extended a prior confidentiality order to the motion materials.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding noise issues allegedly caused by damage or lack of repair to the common elements.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the case, arguing res judicata based on a previous consent order, lack of jurisdiction over repair issues, and unfairness regarding costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the previous consent order did not bar claims for subsequent noise issues, and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over noise nuisance claims under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, even if the applicant requests a repair as a remedy.

The case was allowed to proceed.

The applicant condominium owner sought permission from the respondent condominium corporation to use his parking space to service and repair his vehicle.

The corporation denied the request, relying on a rule that prohibited vehicle repairs on the common elements or parking units without express consent.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation reasonably enforced its rules and was within its rights to deny permission.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant, a unit owner and former board member, requested records from the respondent condominium corporation regarding advice from its auditors on allocating a property survey expense to the reserve fund.

The respondent argued the only existing document was an internal email chain, which it claimed was not a record and was already in the applicant's possession.

The Tribunal found that the portion of the email summarizing the auditor's oral advice became a record when accepted by the board and reflected in the minutes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the redacted email and reimburse the applicant's filing fees, but declined to order a penalty as the case raised a novel legal question.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 3.

The applicant subsequently requested permission to withdraw the case with no award of costs or penalty.

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 against a unit owner and her tenant for failing to comply with the corporation's pet rules.

The tenant repeatedly failed to clean up her dogs' droppings from the exclusive use common elements yard, and the unit owner failed to take steps to ensure the tenant's compliance despite multiple notices.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found both the tenant and the unit owner in breach of the governing documents and the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered both respondents to comply with the rules and ordered the unit owner to reimburse the applicant's filing fee, but declined to order the permanent removal of the dogs or compensation for enforcement costs.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against the unit owners and the occupant for breaching the corporation's governing documents regarding noise and parking.

The occupant repeatedly parked in visitor parking and fire lanes, and created unreasonable noise.

The unit owners failed to ensure the occupant's compliance and did not respond to the corporation's communications.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the unit owners and the occupant breached the governing documents.

The Tribunal ordered them to comply and ordered the unit owners to pay compensation for enforcement costs and legal costs.

The applicant condominium owner submitted a request for records to obtain plumber's reports regarding a water leak that allegedly damaged her unit.

The respondent condominium corporation refused the request, citing section 55(4)(c) of the Condominium Act, 1998, on the basis that the records related to other specific units and owners.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation's refusal to provide the records with appropriate redactions was without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to provide the redacted records, reimburse the applicant's $200 Tribunal fee, and pay a $500 penalty.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order enforcing its no-smoking rule against the respondent unit owner.

The respondent, a legacy smoker, failed to prevent smoke from escaping her unit into the common elements, creating a nuisance under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal found the respondent in violation of the rule and the Act, ordered her to immediately comply, and granted the corporation the right to inspect the unit on two hours' notice upon receiving further complaints.

The respondent was also ordered to pay $2,506 in costs and compensation.

The applicant condominium corporation and the respondents agreed to settle their dispute during Stage 2 mediation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the settlement terms, which included rules regarding noise thresholds, visitor restrictions, and communication protocols.

The Tribunal also issued a confidentiality order anonymizing the respondents' identities, applying the Sherman Estate standard to protect their individual dignity.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation failed to enforce its declaration regarding visitor parking by allowing residents to park in common element spaces.

The applicant sought an order requiring the corporation to install visitor parking signage and enforce parking restrictions.

The Tribunal found that the corporation's board of directors had never formally designated the common element spaces as visitor parking, meaning the restriction limiting those spaces to visitors did not apply.

The Tribunal also found the corporation's complaint-based enforcement approach to be reasonable.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant, a unit owner, challenged the reasonableness of the condominium corporation's by-law and rule prohibiting pets.

The condominium's declaration was silent on the issue of pets, but the no-pets by-law had been in place since 1988.

The Tribunal found that the by-law and rule were not inconsistent with the declaration and were reasonable.

Applying the business judgment principle, the Tribunal deferred to the board's decision to maintain the prohibition, noting that the board had surveyed owners and acted within its authority.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 3.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that it wished to withdraw its case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed without costs pursuant to Rule 43.1(d) of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal after receiving a cease and desist letter from the respondent condominium corporation demanding $800 in legal costs for circulating an allegedly defamatory email.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the dispute did not relate to a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption within the meaning of the Condominium Act or the corporation's governing documents, but rather to a general indemnification claim.

The application was dismissed at the mediation stage as being outside the Tribunal's legal authority.