Condominium Authority Tribunal
DATE: October 9, 2025 CASE: 2025-00124N
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Brian Cook, Member
The Applicants: Nataly Akleh (Primary) Shashi Sabadevan Flora Binabaye Villanueva Represented by David Danielson, Counsel
The Respondent: Durham Standard Condominium Corporation No. 324 Represented by Anthony Spadafora, Counsel
WITHDRAWAL ORDER
1The Applicants have asked that this Application be withdrawn because of significant health issues affecting a family member of the principal Applicant. The Respondent Durham Standard Condominium Corporation No. 324 (DSCC 324) does not oppose the withdrawal. The parties do not agree about terms for the withdrawal. The Applicants would like a withdrawal order that would permit them to bring an application respecting the same issues in the future. DSCC 324 seeks an order that would prevent that from happening and also seeks legal costs, to date, related to the case.
2I conclude that the Applicants may withdraw this application without prejudice to their right to bring a fresh application that may include the issues raised in the present application.
3This application relates to the DSCC 324 pet rule and specifically, a requirement that pets must be carried through the front door of the building and should otherwise use one of three exits. The Applicants submit that this requirement is unreasonable. There are ancillary issues about how the rule has been enforced, how it was adopted and attempts to review it.
4The Stage 3 – Adjudication process started on June 23, 2025. There was then a delay to accommodate vacation schedules and a further delay in organizing a case conference call with counsel which occurred on August 12. A hearing date of October 2 was set. The request to withdraw the application was made on September 24. The reason for the request was that a member of the principal Applicant’s immediate family was dealing with serious health issues.
5Counsel for DSCC 324 advised that while his client does not oppose the withdrawal, he submits “A withdrawal without a binding dismissal is a completely unreasonable proposition”. Counsel adds “[a] future proceeding before this Tribunal between the same parties with respect to the same subject matter following the withdrawal of this proceeding would almost certainly be an abuse of this Tribunal's process.”
6The doctrine of abuse of process has been described in the following terms:
The doctrine of abuse of process engages the inherent power of the court to prevent the misuse of its procedure, in a way that would be manifestly unfair to a party to the litigation before it or would in some other way bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Ontario Court of Appeal in Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles 2000 8514 (ON CA), 51 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.), paragraph 55.
7The doctrine is most commonly applied in situations where the issues in dispute before the court or tribunal are in essence an attempt to relitigate issues that have already been decided.
8In this case, the Applicants have done nothing improper since the case moved to Stage 3 – Tribunal Decision. There is no reason to believe that the request to withdraw is made for some improper purpose. The request is understandable and reasonable in the circumstances.
9I find that withdrawal of the application is not an abuse of the Tribunal’s process. The applicants may file an application in the future which may include the issues raised in the present application. That application will be assessed based on the circumstances at that time, including if there are jurisdictional or procedural issues that need to be addressed.
10No documents have been marked as exhibits in this case because the case is withdrawn at an early stage in the proceeding.
11I also find that there is no basis to make an order with respect to costs. The Tribunal’s Rule 48.2 provides as follows:
The CAT generally will not order one Party to reimburse another Party for legal fees or disbursements (“costs”) incurred in the course of the proceeding. However, where appropriate, the CAT may order a Party to pay to another Party all or part of their costs, including costs that were directly related to a Party’s behaviour that was unreasonable, undertaken for an improper purpose, or that caused a delay or additional expense.
12I find that the Applicants have done nothing in this proceeding that would suggest that a cost order is appropriate.
ORDER
13The Tribunal orders that:
- The withdrawal request is granted. The application is withdrawn with no costs and without prejudice to the Applicants ability to bring a future case, which may include the same issues.
Brian Cook
Member, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: October 9, 2025