Weiler v. Tanner, 2025 ONCAT 217

CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL

DATE: December 17, 2025
CASE: 2025-00246N
Citation: Weiler v. Tanner, 2025 ONCAT 217

Order under Rule 4 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s Rules of Practice.

Member: Laurie Sanford, Member

The Applicant, Beverley Weiler
Represented by David McKendrick, Paralegal

The Respondent, Avril Tanner
Self-Represented

The Intervenor, Waterloo Standard Condominium Corporation No. 545
Represented by Dakota Forster, Counsel

Submission dates: November 13, 2025 to December 5, 2025

MOTION ORDER

1Beverley Weiler and Avril Tanner are neighbours in Waterloo Standard Condominium Corporation No. 545 (“WSCC 545”) and their front doors are side‑by‑side. Ms. Weiler alleges that Ms. Tanner’s front door light shines into her porch, front yard and into her home, creating a nuisance, annoyance or disruption and interfering with the quiet enjoyment of her home and yard. The Stage 3 Hearing of this Application has proceeded to the point where the parties have disclosed the documents and testimonies they intend to rely on in this matter.

2WSCC 545 moves to dismiss this Application because it alleges that:

1. The Application was brought for an improper purpose or is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; and/or

2. The Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

Issue 1 – Should this Application be dismissed because it was brought for an improper purpose or is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process?

3Under Rule 4.2 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal Rules of Practice, effective January 1, 2022 (the “CAT Rules of Practice”), the Tribunal may make orders to prevent an abuse of its process, including a dismissal of the proceedings where the Tribunal finds that the Application is an abuse of process.

4Rule 19.1 of the CAT Rules of Practice also provides guidance on when the Tribunal may dismiss an application before the final determination. Rule 19.1 (d) empowers the Tribunal to dismiss cases where the Applicant is found to be using the Tribunal for an improper purpose by, for example, filing vexatious applications.

5WSCC 545 submits that Ms. Weiler has brought this case primarily for the purpose of intimidating and harassing Ms. Tanner. Ms. Tanner is the President of the board of directors of WSCC 545, and WSCC 545 alleges that Ms. Weiler is dissatisfied with the governance of the condominium corporation. WSCC 545 alleges that Ms. Weiler holds, and is motivated by, an animus towards Ms. Tanner. WSCC 545 submits that this alleged purpose, combined with the fact that there is no reasonable prospect for success, are grounds to dismiss the Application.

6WSCC 545 asserts that there is “substantial evidence” that Ms. Weiler is not only dissatisfied with the governance of WSCC 545 but “has commenced various proceedings against” both Ms. Tanner and WSCC 545 to bend them to her will. Ms. Tanner also made submissions about the personal harassment she alleges she has suffered at the hands of Ms. Weiler.

7WSCC 545 has advanced no evidence, beyond the bald assertion that Ms. Weiler has commenced various proceedings against Ms. Tanner or WSCC 545. Ms. Weiler submits that this is her first application to the Tribunal. There is no evidence before me of any actions brought by her in other forums. The Tribunal has consistently held that dissatisfaction with the governance of a condominium corporation is not, in and of itself, grounds to characterise an application to the Tribunal as frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process or brought for an improper purpose.

8While it is obvious that relations between Ms. Weiler and Ms. Tanner are frayed and that Ms. Weiler has, from time to time, stood on Ms. Tanner’s porch to take photos of the light, this is not grounds to dismiss the Application before a final determination of the issues.

9WSCC 545 also alleges that Ms. Weiler has a pattern of attempting to re‑litigate matters that have already been decided. As Ms. Weiler points out, there has been no litigation on the issues of this Application, so it is premature to characterise Ms. Weiler’s Application as an attempt to re‑litigate this matter. These first grounds for dismissing this Application fail.

Issue 2 – Should the Application be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success?

10Under Rule 19.1 (b) of the CAT Rules of Practice, the Tribunal may dismiss an application if it has no reasonable prospect of success. WSCC 545 submits that this is grounds to dismiss this Application, either as a distinct ground or as evidence of a frivolous or vexatious application or one that was brought for an improper purpose and is an abuse of process.

11WSCC 545 introduced numerous photos showing unspecified rooms in various shades of darkness. WSCC 545 submits that this shows that the light from Ms. Tanner’s front porch does not penetrate into Ms. Weiler’s rooms. WSCC 545 also introduced statements from neighbours with a similar physical set‑up to that of Ms. Weiler and Ms. Tanner, in which the neighbours said that they were not disturbed by their neighbour’s front door light. Therefore, WSCC 545 submits that Ms. Weiler has no reasonable prospect of success and the Application should be dismissed. Alternatively, WSCC 545 submits that Ms. Weiler has no reasonable prospect of a remedy or that the issue here is too trivial to warrant this Application.

12Ms. Weiler points out that the question of whether or not the light from Ms. Tanner’s front porch penetrates onto Ms. Weiler’s porch, front yard or house in such a way as to create a nuisance, annoyance or disruption is a factual matter that is at the centre of this case. The remedy she is seeking is to have Ms. Tanner’s front door light returned to a previous lighting standard.

13Ms. Weiler submits that regardless of whether her case is strong or weak, she has a right to make it. It is a legitimate matter, within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in Ms. Weiler’s submission. Moreover, Ms. Weiler submits that she has not yet had an opportunity to cross examine WSCC 545’s witnesses and to test their version of events. Ms. Weiler characterises WSCC 545’s argument as requesting the Tribunal to prejudge a question of fact, accepting both WSCC 545’s evidence and its characterisation of that evidence.

14I agree. The issue here is not who has the stronger case but who has the right to make their case. Ms. Weiler has brought an application on a matter that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide. At this stage of the proceeding, there is no basis for concluding that the Application is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. The Tribunal should not, in the circumstances of this case, prejudge a factual matter that is at the centre of the case. This motion is dismissed.

15Both WSCC 545 and Ms. Weiler claimed their costs in this matter. Since WSCC 545 was unsuccessful on the motion, it is not entitled to any costs on the motion. Ms. Weiler submitted a bill of costs showing $1,450 + HST in this motion for a total of $1,638.50.

16Under Rule 48.2 of the CAT Rules of Practice, the Tribunal generally does not order one party to reimburse another for legal fees. There are exceptions to this general rule, including when one party has undertaken behaviour that caused a delay or additional expense. This motion was not substantive. There was little or no evidence to support WSCC 545’s assertions. However, the submissions were lengthy and required a detailed response. It is customary to consider costs at the conclusion of a case, and I will do so in this matter, taking into account the factors set out here.

ORDER

17The motion is dismissed.

Laurie Sanford

Member, Condominium Authority Tribunal