OCAT 2025

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal disputing an $811.00 chargeback for a smoke detector repair.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the dispute related to repairs and maintenance, which falls outside its jurisdiction.

As the applicant failed to identify a relevant provision in the corporation's governing documents that would grant jurisdiction over the indemnification issue, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding the inclusion of owners' names in the condominium board's meeting minutes.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on its own motion at the intake stage under section 1.41(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal found the application was about minor issues, had no reasonable prospect of success, and was filed for an improper purpose, noting this was the applicant's tenth application and raised issues already addressed in prior decisions.

The applicant, a condominium owner previously restricted from filing new applications without permission, sought leave from the Tribunal to file a new application regarding a records request.

The respondent condominium corporation opposed the motion, arguing the application was filed beyond the 60-day limitation period after the board's response.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the records request was deemed abandoned under s. 13.10(b) of O. Reg 48/01, and dismissed the motion.

The applicant filed an application seeking an order that the respondent condominium corporation comply with a prior settlement agreement.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of its Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any specific terms of the settlement agreement that were violated and that the application was filed beyond the six-month timeframe permitted by the agreement.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application alleging the respondents failed to comply with parking, pet, and nuisance provisions in the governing documents.

Before a final decision was rendered, the applicant informed the Tribunal that the issues had been resolved and requested to withdraw the case on a without costs basis.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed under Rule 43.1 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking email correspondence related to a letter sent by the respondent corporation.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as the requested emails related to contemplated litigation, given the applicant's repeated threats to sue the corporation for libel and slander over the letter.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was clearly contemplating litigation at the time of the records request and sought the emails to support his claims.

As records related to contemplated litigation are exempt from examination under s. 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998, the Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1(b) for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a case regarding the adequacy and contents of a Periodic Information Certificate (PIC) provided by the respondent condominium corporation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that while it has jurisdiction over records-related disputes under section 55 of the Condominium Act, it lacks jurisdiction to decide disputes about the accuracy and content of PICs under section 26.3.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction and cautioned the applicant against improper use of the Tribunal.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent, another unit owner and board member, was harassing her through derogatory statements, unsolicited emails, and yelling.

The applicant argued this conduct constituted a nuisance under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19 of its Rules of Practice, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear disputes primarily about harassment or governance issues between board members, as the alleged conduct did not meet the legal threshold for a nuisance under the Act or the corporation's rules.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against the respondent unit owner for causing noise nuisances and harassing other residents, contrary to s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation's rules.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent engaged in persistent unreasonable noise and harassment, including yelling profanities and threats in the common elements, even after signing a peace bond.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the Act and rules, and awarded the applicant $1,636.24 in damages and $10,150 in costs.

The applicant brought a case to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent violated condominium rules regarding pets and noise.

The parties reached a consent order during Stage 2 Mediation.

The tribunal ordered the condominium corporation to investigate any future complaints from the applicant regarding the respondent and to consider enforcement steps if necessary.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding unreasonable odours emanating from the respondent owner's unit due to hoarding and garbage accumulation.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's activities constituted a nuisance under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to clean the unit within 30 days, failing which the corporation may enter and hire a third-party cleaner at the respondent's expense.

The corporation was also awarded $750 in compensation and $1,200 in costs.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to combine two separate applications filed by the applicant: one regarding a nuisance dispute and another regarding a records dispute.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no practical benefit to combining the matters as they involved different facts and issues with no apparent connection.

The applicant filed a noise complaint with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The Tribunal requested clarification on the person or activity causing the noise, as required by section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, but the applicant was unable to provide this information.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute and dismissed the application.

The applicant unit owner sought an order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to produce an insurance denial letter related to a flood incident, along with a penalty and costs.

The corporation maintained that the requested record did not exist and was not in its control, as its insurance broker and insurer declined to provide a formal denial letter.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation had a reasonable excuse for not providing the record because it did not possess it.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a request for records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The Tribunal determined that the applicant was actually seeking information about how a decision was made, rather than requesting existing records.

As the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998 is limited to disputes over records and does not extend to requests for information, the application was dismissed pursuant to Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice.

The applicant submitted a records request to the respondent condominium corporation for maintenance logbooks.

The corporation confirmed the logbooks did not exist, a fact the applicant already knew from a prior settlement.

The applicant brought the case to the Tribunal to prove the condominium manager was failing to meet contractual requirements.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was brought for an improper purpose and constituted an abuse of process, as the Tribunal's jurisdiction relates to records disputes, not evaluating management performance.

The applicant filed a records application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal and subsequently brought a motion to add a second records request to the ongoing case.

The respondent did not reply to the request for submissions.

The Tribunal granted the motion, noting that the case was still in the negotiation stage and that adding the request would be the most expeditious method of determining the issues, avoiding the burden of a second case.

The applicant was ordered to upload the related forms to the case documents.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order requiring the respondent unit owner to comply with its no-smoking rule and section 117(2)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent repeatedly smoked in his unit and on common elements, causing smoke and odour migration to other units despite numerous warnings.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to immediately cease smoking on the property and awarded the applicant damages for pre-litigation enforcement costs, plus partial legal costs and disbursements for the Tribunal proceeding.

The applicant condominium owner brought an application challenging a chargeback for compliance costs and restrictions on her access to common areas.

The respondent corporation had issued the chargeback for costs incurred enforcing section 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting it lacks jurisdiction over section 117(1) disputes, which involve conduct posing a risk to health, safety, or property.

Despite the applicant's argument that her claim concerned governance failures rather than section 117(1), the Tribunal concluded it did not have authority to hear the matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal after the respondent condominium corporation denied certain requests for records relating to site work on the common elements.

During the mediation stage, the tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, finding that the respondent's denials were reasonable because the requested items were either ambiguous or did not exist.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent had discharged its duty under the Condominium Act and dismissed the application without proceeding to a full hearing.