OCAT 2026

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal under its nuisance jurisdiction, alleging that the respondent condominium corporation installed a water meter in his commercial unit without authority and improperly charged him for water consumption.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that disputes over repair, maintenance, and chargebacks fall outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant argued the actions constituted harassment and nuisance.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the dispute concerned the authority to install the meter and chargebacks, which are not within its jurisdiction, and dismissed the application.

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging harassment by the condominium corporation regarding enforcement letters about an alleged illegal basement apartment and related chargebacks.

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

The applicant's response, which appeared to be generated by artificial intelligence, failed to address the jurisdictional issues and raised new claims outside the Tribunal's authority.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that disputes over unauthorized alterations to common elements and the alleged illegal apartment fall outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal disputing harassment allegations and a chargeback.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it appeared to lack jurisdiction over the dispute.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 19.1(f) of its Rules of Practice.

The applicant unit owner filed a tribunal application alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records, including meeting minutes and a reserve fund study, within the statutory timelines.

The corporation eventually provided the minutes, blaming the delay on a management transition, which the tribunal found was not a reasonable excuse.

The tribunal determined the requested reserve fund study only existed in draft form and was not a record the applicant was entitled to receive.

As the applicant had received all existing records and waived his request for a penalty, the tribunal made no order for further production but awarded the applicant $200 in costs for tribunal fees.

The applicant, a long-time condominium resident, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that she was subjected to unreasonable noise from neighbouring units and that the respondent condominium corporation failed to adequately investigate or stop it.

The Tribunal found that some of the noises were related to normal living or authorized repairs and were not unreasonable.

While the source of other mysterious carpentry noises could not be determined, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent's investigations were reasonable, even if not expeditious.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested records from the respondent condominium corporation regarding a decision to replace his exclusive use common element lawn and charge him for the resodding.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to produce all relevant records, including contractor reports and unit-specific maintenance logs.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent had produced all existing records and was not obligated to create or produce non-existent ones.

The Tribunal also determined that the records kept by the respondent, including a contractor quotation and board meeting minutes, were adequate under subsection 55(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant's request for a penalty was dismissed, but the respondent was ordered to reimburse the applicant's $200 Tribunal filing fee due to misleading communications about the existence of written reports.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to disqualify the applicant's proposed representative, a friend and fellow unit owner who had his own similar active case against the corporation.

The respondent argued the representation violated Rule 9.1(b) regarding indirect gains and Rule 9.6 regarding abuse of process.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no evidence the representative would receive a direct or indirect gain, and concluding that representation by someone who previously litigated similar issues against the same respondent does not constitute an abuse of process.

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

After requesting to move the file to the tribunal decision stage, the applicant failed to pay the required fee by the deadline.

The tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicants filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a dispute over being required to park in a visitor parking spot while their assigned spot was undergoing repairs.

During mediation, the tribunal learned that the repairs had been completed and the applicants were no longer required to park in the visitor area.

The tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the case as moot under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Practice.

As neither party provided submissions in response, the tribunal dismissed the case.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to enforce rules regarding quiet enjoyment due to loud banging and stomping noises.

Before any submissions or evidence were provided in Stage 3, the applicant requested to withdraw the case.

The respondent did not object.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owners to comply with its rules regarding visitor parking and smoking.

The tribunal found that the respondents had contravened the rules by repeatedly parking their vehicles in visitor parking spaces.

However, the tribunal dismissed the claim regarding smoking, finding insufficient evidence that the smoke caused an unreasonable nuisance, annoyance, or disruption as required by the Condominium Act.

The tribunal ordered the respondents to cease parking in visitor spaces and to pay damages and costs to the corporation.

The applicants filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a dispute over the respondent's FOB policy.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the dispute fell outside its jurisdiction under O. Reg. 179/17, as it did not relate to a provision governing pets, parking, vehicles, storage, nuisances, or identification/compensation.

In response, the applicants indicated they no longer wished to pursue the case at the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 19.1(f) of its Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a condominium owner, filed a request for core records which the respondent condominium corporation ignored until after the applicant commenced a Tribunal proceeding.

The corporation eventually provided the existing records but revealed that no board meetings had been held for a year, with decisions instead made by email.

The Tribunal found that emails are not adequate records of board decisions and directed the corporation to provide minutes once the email decisions were retroactively approved at a proper meeting.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to pay a $2,000 penalty for its initial unexcused refusal to provide the records, plus $150 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested records relating to fencing requirements and board minutes regarding the denial of her section 98 request.

The respondent condominium corporation delayed providing the records due to administrative errors by its management company.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the delay constituted a refusal without a reasonable excuse for the fencing records, though the corporation had a reasonable excuse for not providing draft minutes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $500 penalty and $100 in costs, but dismissed the applicant's claim regarding the adequacy of the corporation's records.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application alleging the respondent breached a prior settlement agreement by continuing to smoke in her unit.

The respondent, an elderly resident with mobility issues, conceded the breach but cited difficulties accessing the outdoors due to her unit's door threshold.

The parties reached a consent order whereby the condominium corporation will arrange and partially fund modifications to the door, after which the respondent is strictly prohibited from smoking in her unit or on common elements.

The applicant filed a case alleging unreasonable noise from the respondent's condominium unit, but withdrew it during mediation after being advised that the child primarily responsible for the noise had relocated.

Two weeks later, the applicant brought a motion to re-open the case, citing continued noise.

The Tribunal denied the motion, noting that its Rules of Practice do not provide for re-opening a withdrawn case and finding no reason to vary the rules, as the applicant had been warned that some noise would continue during an adjustment period.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against the unit owners and their tenant regarding complaints of unreasonable noise.

The tenant did not participate in the hearing.

The owners did not dispute the allegations and had already commenced proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board to evict the tenant.

The Tribunal found that the tenant caused unreasonable noise in violation of section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to cease making unreasonable noise and directed the owners to continue their efforts to ensure compliance and keep the condominium corporation informed of the eviction proceedings.

No costs were ordered on consent.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's case, arguing that the applicant had filed an identical claim regarding parking rules in Small Claims Court, constituting an abuse of process.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over parking disputes under the Condominium Act and its regulations.

Because the Small Claims Court proceeding was paused pending this decision, there was no risk of the respondent having to defend two claims simultaneously, and dismissing the application would prejudice the self-represented applicant.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

During the mediation stage, the applicant requested to withdraw the case, to which the respondent agreed.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal without prejudice, ordered the parties to bear their own costs, and closed the case.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal of their wish to withdraw the case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed, noting that all settlement-related communications remain confidential.