OCAT 2025

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against the respondent unit owners regarding smoke odours allegedly causing a nuisance.

At the Stage 3 hearing, the respondents clarified that they are co-owners and that a tenant currently resides in the unit.

Because the tenant was not named as a party, the Tribunal dismissed the application and directed the applicant to refile the application naming the tenant, with filing fees waived.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order for the permanent removal of the respondent's dog, alleging the respondent allowed the dog to defecate on her balcony and washed the waste onto the balcony below, creating a nuisance.

The respondent failed to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent violated the condominium's rules regarding pets and nuisance.

The Tribunal ordered the permanent removal of the dog within 30 days and awarded $200 in costs for the filing fee, but declined to award the requested legal costs on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to mediation.

The applicant requested to withdraw the case on the basis that the respondent tenant had given notice to terminate their tenancy.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed, with a provision that it could be reopened if the respondent did not vacate the premises by the specified date.

The applicant condominium owner filed a complaint against the respondent condominium corporation, alleging that a security light affixed to a neighbouring unit created a nuisance by illuminating her backyard and infiltrating her bedroom.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the continuous, bright illumination constituted an unreasonable nuisance under section 117(2)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to engage an electrical contractor to modify or replace the lighting to minimize spillage onto the applicant's property, and awarded the applicant $150 for Tribunal fees, while dismissing her claim for $20,000 in damages.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to the mediation stage.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant unit owner requested audited financial statements from the respondent condominium corporation for the 2023-2024 fiscal year.

The owners had previously unanimously agreed to waive the requirement for an audit for that year.

The applicant later attempted to rescind her approval of the waiver midway through the year.

The Tribunal held that there is no mechanism to rescind a waiver midway through a fiscal year, and therefore no audited financial statements existed to be provided.

However, because the respondent only provided other requested records after the applicant paid the fee to move the case to Stage 3, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant's $200 Tribunal fees.

The applicant, a unit owner, requested a copy of the new condominium management contract and bid quotations from the respondent condominium corporation.

The corporation delayed providing the records until the mediation stage of the Tribunal process, citing the need to protect the integrity of the procurement process.

The Tribunal found that the delay amounted to a refusal without a reasonable excuse, as the procurement process was already complete when the request was made.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to pay a $125 penalty and $200 in costs for the applicant's filing fees.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought an application alleging that the respondents, the tenants in the unit above, created unreasonable noise through their daily living activities.

The applicant relied on her own testimony and unrecorded decibel readings, while an acoustic study showed the flooring met building code requirements.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the noise resulted from ordinary activities of daily living and the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the noise was objectively unreasonable.

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal requesting the source information used for an allegedly defamatory letter.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because the request was for information rather than a record the condominium corporation is required to maintain, placing it outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant did not respond to the reasons for dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal disputing a $15.00 estimated fee for half an hour of work to prepare a non-core condominium record.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the issue was so minor it would be unfair to require the respondent to participate in the process.

The Tribunal also noted that Ontario Regulation 48/01 provides a mechanism to reconcile actual costs if the work takes less than 30 minutes.

Finding the issues either too minor or outside its jurisdiction, the Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed four applications with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding harassment, records requests, unit access, and resident status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the harassment allegations lacked connection to the governing documents, the records request was improperly filed as a nuisance dispute, and unit access and resident status were outside its jurisdiction.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for records related to a garage membrane project and other expenditures.

The respondent condominium corporation provided some records late and argued the applicant was on a fishing expedition.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not on a fishing expedition but concluded the respondent had provided all the records it was required to keep.

The applicant was awarded $200 in Tribunal fees due to the respondent's delay in providing the initial records.

The applicants filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 2 mediation.

The applicants subsequently informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a unit owner, filed an application against the respondent condominium corporation for failing to provide requested records, including 2008 board minutes and a 2024 audit.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the corporation missed the 30-day deadline to respond, it subsequently made good faith efforts to locate the records.

The Tribunal held that the corporation had a reasonable excuse for not providing the 2008 minutes, which were likely destroyed or never existed, and the 2024 audit, which had not yet been prepared.

The requests for a penalty and a court-ordered auditor were dismissed, but the applicant was awarded $200 in costs for tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium owner sought an order allowing his tenant to park a van with a roof rack in his designated outdoor parking space, despite the respondent condominium corporation's assertion that the van exceeded the 1.90-metre height limit set out in its Declaration and Rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the van's height, including the roof rack, clearly exceeded the explicit limit in the Declaration.

The Tribunal held that the statutory reasonableness test for condominium rules did not apply to the Declaration itself.

The Tribunal ordered that the condominium corporation was entitled to enforce the height restriction and seek the removal of the van, but declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to remove two unneutered cats from a unit owned by the respondent owner and occupied by the respondent resident.

The applicant alleged the cats caused an unreasonable odour from spraying urine and soiled the common elements.

The respondents did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the odour constituted a nuisance in contravention of section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the condominium rules.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the cats and awarded the applicant $904 in pre-application enforcement costs plus $150 in Tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application alleging the respondent corporation failed to enforce a rule restricting visitor parking to visitors only.

Prior to the hearing, the corporation amended its rules to permit residents to park in visitor parking under certain circumstances.

As the rule in question was superseded, the Tribunal found it no longer had jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed the application without costs on consent of the parties.

The applicant brought a motion requesting the Condominium Authority Tribunal to stay all enforcement actions related to a special assessment until requested records were provided.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion without requiring additional submissions, holding that its jurisdiction is limited to disputes connected to the creation, retention, and access to records, and does not extend to common expenses or collection actions.

The applicant filed a case regarding noise complaints but failed to advance the matter past the negotiation stage for almost a year.

The applicant also used profanities on the tribunal's platform contrary to the Rules of Practice.

Despite warnings from tribunal staff, the applicant did not move the case to mediation.

The tribunal concluded the case was filed for an improper purpose and dismissed the application, noting the applicant's failure to make a meaningful effort to resolve the dispute.

Following the dismissal of the underlying condominium dispute, the respondent brought a motion under Rule 47 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice to reopen the case solely to seek costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that reopening the matter at this juncture solely to address costs was not warranted, as the circumstances leading to the dismissal had already been addressed.