Condominium Authority Tribunal
Date: August 20, 2025 Case: 2025-00533N & 2025-00539N Citation: Koprivica v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1088, 2025 ONCAT 141
Order under section 1.41 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Nicole Aylwin, Vice-Chair
The Applicant: Branko Koprivica, Self-Represented The Respondent: Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1088
Submission Dates: August 5, 2025 to August 12, 2025
DISMISSAL ORDER
1Branko Koprivica (the “Applicant”) submitted two applications to the Condominium Authority Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) on July 25 and July 28, 2025. The Tribunal reviewed the applications but did not accept the cases. On August 5, 2025, the Tribunal proposed to dismiss these applications under Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice as both applications appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
2The Applicant was invited to provide submissions explaining why these applications should or should not be dismissed. Having reviewed the Applicant’s submissions, I find the cases do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and are dismissed for the reasons set out below.
Application: 2025-00533N
3The Applicant stated that this dispute is about the Respondent’s responsibility, as per provisions in the governing documents, to repair the HVAC equipment. The Applicant submits that since 2021 a “thermal condition” has caused an extended period of unreasonable temperatures in his unit. The Applicant alleges that the cause of the unreasonable temperatures are deficiencies/repair and maintenance issues related to the heating/cooling system. He submits that the extreme heat and cold that he experiences is an “ongoing nuisance, annoyance or disruption” as per s. 1 (1) (d) (iii.2) of Ontario Regulation 179/17 (“O. Reg. 179/17”), a regulation under the Condominium Act, 1998.
4The Tribunal’s jurisdiction related to “other nuisances” as stated in s. 1 (1) (d) (iii.2) of O. Reg. 179/17 is over “Provisions that prohibit, restrict or otherwise govern any other nuisance, annoyance or disruption …” (our highlight). However, most of the provisions the Applicant submits have been breached are provisions of a reciprocal agreement (sometimes referred to as a mutual use agreement) between the Respondent and another condominium corporation. The Tribunal has jurisdiction over certain types of disputes as they relate to provisions of a corporation’s governing documents, which consist of the declaration, by‑laws and rules. It does not have jurisdiction over disputes related to the provisions of a reciprocal agreement.
5The Applicant also seeks to rely on Article III (1) (b) of the corporation’s declaration which reads in part that “No unit shall be occupied or used by anyone in such a manner as is likely to damage the property or that will unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment by other unit owners of the common elements and the other Units …” (our highlight). While this provision may govern nuisance, annoyance or disruption, the issues the Applicant identifies are not related to the use or occupation of a unit in a manner that may cause unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the property. The issues are about the repair and maintenance of the heating/cooling system that controls the “environmental conditions” of the building. There are no allegations that anyone is occupying or using a unit in a way that is contrary to this provision. The crux of the dispute is over provisions related to repair and maintenance; it just so happens that the impact of the alleged breaches may be described by the Applicant as an annoyance or nuisance‑like.
6I find that the issues in this application are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Accordingly, I order that it be dismissed.
Application: 2025-00539N
7In this application, the Applicant challenges a chargeback related to a dispute over a smoke alarm replacement. Pursuant to s. 1 (1) (d) (iv) of O. Reg. 179/17, the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to deal with a dispute about a chargeback if it relates to disputes otherwise described in s. 1 (1) (d) of O. Reg. 179/17.
8Having reviewed the submissions of the Applicant, I find the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this dispute. The chargebacks in dispute are not related to a dispute described in O. Reg. 179/17. This is a dispute over who is responsible for a smoke alarm replacement, the costs associated with the replacement, and whether those costs can be charged back. The Applicant alleges that the chargeback stems from the improper enforcement of provisions (or lack thereof) that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over – specifically, provisions in the Respondent’s reciprocal agreement (i.e. Articles 3.02, 4.04 and 14.03), and provisions of the declaration (Schedule “C” (ii)) that set out unit boundaries. As none of the provisions cited fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, neither does a dispute over a chargeback related to them. Accordingly, I order that this application be dismissed.
ORDER
9The Tribunal orders case 2025‑00533N and case 2025‑00539N be dismissed.
Nicole Aylwin
Vice-Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: August 20, 2025