OCAT 2024

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to permanently remove his cat from the premises for breaching pet provisions.

The respondent repeatedly allowed his cat to roam freely in the hallways and on other owners' balconies, which are common elements.

Despite multiple warnings and formal letters of compliance, the respondent continued to violate the rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the respondent in breach of the governing documents and ordered the permanent removal of the cat, along with $740 in damages and $2,200 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application regarding unreasonable noise allegedly coming from the respondent's unit.

During the proceeding, it was revealed that another unit owner was on title and shared possession of the unit, but had not been named as a party or notified of the hearing.

With the agreement of the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the case without prejudice to allow the applicant to refile a new case naming both unit owners as respondents.

The applicant condominium owner filed a case alleging that noise and vibration from the operation of the respondents' garage doors constituted an unreasonable nuisance under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent condominium corporations brought a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of res judicata and lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal rejected the res judicata argument, finding the current complaint related to a newly installed garage door mechanism rather than a broken grate addressed in a previous case.

However, the Tribunal granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that noise resulting from the regular and ordinary use of common elements does not constitute an 'activity' within the meaning of section 117(2) of the Act, and the relevant declaration provision applied to owners rather than the corporation.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent owner and tenants to comply with its governing documents regarding pets.

The tenants' two dogs had repeatedly attacked other dogs and urinated on common elements, leading the board to deem them a nuisance.

The owner failed to take steps to ensure the tenants' compliance.

The Tribunal found that both the owner and tenants breached their obligations, ordered the permanent removal of the dogs, and awarded enforcement costs and legal fees to the applicant.

The applicant unit owner filed an application disputing an $800 indemnification charge levied by the respondent condominium corporation.

The charge was for a compliance letter sent to the applicant's tenant regarding alleged abusive behaviour, which the corporation characterized as workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and section 117(1) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under O. Reg 179/17 to hear disputes relating to section 117(1) of the Condominium Act.

The applicant filed two cases against the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent joined only the first case.

Both parties agreed that the subject matter of both cases was sufficiently related and should be merged in the interest of fairness and efficiency.

The Tribunal ordered the second case closed and merged with the first case pursuant to Rule 18.2 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant unit owner submitted a request for condominium records, specifically plumbing invoices.

The respondent condominium corporation provided redacted invoices but failed to include a statement explaining the redactions as required by the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent also improperly redacted an invoice relating to work performed in the applicant's own unit.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide an unredacted copy of the invoice for the applicant's unit, written explanations for all other redactions, and $200 in costs for filing fees.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding the assignment of a common element parking space.

After mediation reached an impasse, the applicant was given the opportunity to move the matter to Stage 3 but failed to do so or pay the required fee within the allotted time.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant requested to merge two Condominium Authority Tribunal cases regarding records requests.

Both parties consented to merging cases 2024-00296R and 2024-00384R.

The applicant also sought to add a new records request as an issue, while the respondent sought to merge a third case.

The Tribunal ordered the two consented cases to be heard together pursuant to Rule 18.2 of the CAT Rules of Practice, but declined to rule on the additional requests, inviting the parties to raise them as preliminary issues at the Stage 3 hearing.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged that she was experiencing unreasonable noise from the unit above hers due to a lack of sound-dampening underlay.

She sought an order for the condominium corporation to inspect the flooring and for the respondents to install proper underlay if necessary.

The Tribunal found insufficient objective evidence to establish that the noise was unreasonable or exceeded normal day-to-day living sounds.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to cease harassing the tenant above.

The applicant condominium corporation sought costs after the respondent tenant removed a non-compliant dog from the unit during the proceedings.

The tenant had kept a large dog contrary to the condominium's declaration and ignored multiple requests to remove it.

The unit owners did not participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' delayed compliance and non-participation warranted a costs award, but not on a full indemnity basis.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant, acting as Estate Trustee, submitted a request for records to the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to provide a board response or the requested records, and did not participate in the tribunal hearing.

The tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the requested records under the Condominium Act, 1998, and that the respondent had no reasonable excuse for its refusal.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the records within 30 days, with no penalty or costs awarded as the applicant waived them.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

During Stage 2 mediation, the applicant informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application regarding compliance with parking and storage rules, as well as an alleged violation of the declaration due to the respondent operating an unauthorized air conditioning business in the garage.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the business operation.

Finding that the governing documents did not specifically restrict the business as a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption under the regulations, the Tribunal dismissed the portion of the application relating to the business operation for lack of jurisdiction, while allowing the parking and storage issues to proceed.

The applicant in a condominium records dispute sought to add an issue regarding the adequacy of the records provided, specifically alleging that certain proxies used in a recent board election were wrongly dated and should have been disqualified.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the dispute was actually about election procedures rather than records.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, finding that the core issue was an election dispute over which it lacks jurisdiction, and denied the motion to add the issue.

The applicant, a unit owner, filed an application alleging harassment by other unit owners and board members, seeking $10,000 for emotional distress.

The respondent condominium corporation challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the claims fell under section 117(1) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal determined that because the applicant alleged the harassment caused emotional and psychological injuries, the matter fell under section 117(1), which is explicitly excluded from the Tribunal's jurisdiction by O. Reg 179/17.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against a unit owner and occupants for breaching rules regarding smoking and noise.

The respondents did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the occupants repeatedly smoked in the unit and common elements, and created unreasonable noise, contrary to the condominium's rules.

The unit owner failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to comply with the rules and to pay partial compensation for enforcement costs and legal fees.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding the assignment of a common element parking space.

After the applicant ceased communication during the mediation stage, a Notice of Intent to Dismiss was issued.

Upon reviewing the parties' submissions, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not abandoned the application and that mediation would not resolve the dispute.

The Tribunal ordered that the case remain open and permitted the applicant to proceed to Stage 3.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to remove two dogs from his unit, alleging they caused unreasonable noise and exhibited aggressive behaviour.

The respondent claimed the dogs were emotional support animals but failed to provide requested medical documentation and did not participate in the tribunal proceedings.

The tribunal found the dogs constituted a nuisance under the condominium's governing documents and the Condominium Act, 1998.

The tribunal ordered the removal of the dogs and directed the respondent to pay a portion of the applicant's pre-application legal costs and tribunal filing fees.

The parties had two records cases before the Condominium Authority Tribunal, both in the negotiation stage.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the two cases merged pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules of Practice, as the issues were similar and the requested records overlapped.