CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: December 5, 2025
CASE: 2025-00922N
Citation: Balogun v. Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation No. 382, 2025 ONCAT 207
Order under section 1.41 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Ian Darling, Chair.
The Applicant: Olabosipo Balogun (Self-represented)
The Respondent: Wentworth Standard Condominium Corporation No. 382
Submission Dates: December 3, 2025 to December 4, 2025
DISMISSAL ORDER
1This application was received by the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT). December 1, 2025. The CAT has reviewed the application and identified jurisdictional concerns. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application under Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice.
2The Applicant responded to the Notice. The response did not respond to the specific concerns identified in the Notice. The submissions were clearly written using generative artificial intelligence (“AI”). It is a well‑known concern that generative AI use in a tribunal context creates a risk because the models have been known to create false submissions. These risks can be reduced by carefully reviewing the product of generative AI and ensuring they are accurate.
3The Applicant was not careful. The Applicant’s response references three cases that do not exist. Since they can be characterized as an AI hallucination, I do not need to materially engage with the positions advanced – they simply do not exist. The positions they are supposed to support are not true.
4When parties submit an application to the CAT, if there are jurisdictional concerns, the Tribunal identifies the issues and gives parties several opportunities to correct errors to bring the application within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In this case, rather than engaging with the specific jurisdictional issues identified in the communication from the Tribunal and the Notice, the response boldly asserts that the CAT can deal with the case. It did not respond to the specific reasons the Tribunal was proposing to dismiss the Application.
5The Application was about chargebacks. The Tribunal can only deal with chargebacks if the issue is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The chargebacks were related to damage caused by a failure in the heating/cooling system.
6The application is dismissed for the following reasons:
This application about a chargeback related to a repairs and maintenance issue. The condominium corporation issued a chargeback to the Applicant's unit alleging that their heating/cooling system caused water damage to other units.
Although the Applicant mentioned in their Problem Description that the corporation relied on a provision related to nuisance, annoyance, or disruption as basis for the chargeback, the Lawyer’s letter uploaded to the Application relies on a provision governing the owners’ responsibility to maintain and repair their heating/cooling equipment, rather than governing nuisances.
Repairs and maintenance issues fall under s. 89 to 92 of the Condominium Act, 1998. These sections do not fall under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as set out under Ontario Regulation 179/17 (“O. Reg. 179/17”).
Furthermore, the Tribunal only has jurisdiction over provisions in the condominium corporation’s governing documents as specified in O. Reg. 179/17. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over any and all provisions from a condominium corporation’s governing documents.
The Applicant has been informed of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and that repairs and maintenance issues do not fall under it. He decided to re‑submit the application stating that the issue should fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as it is about the use of provisions in the governing documents by the condo corporation.
ORDER
7The Tribunal orders the Application dismissed.
Ian Darling
Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: December 5, 2025