Condominium Authority Tribunal
CASE: 2025-00748N
Order under section 34.3 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Victoria Romero, Member
The Applicant: Rod Wright, Self-Represented
The Respondent: Middlesex Condominium Corporation No. 154, Represented by Tanya Bourque, Agent
Submission Dates: February 12, 2026 to March 11, 2026
DISMISSAL ORDER
1The Applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal (the “CAT”). The case proceeded to Stage 2 - Mediation on December 24, 2025.
2Under Rule 34.3 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice, the CAT can close a case in Stage 2 - Mediation if the CAT determines that a case is about issues that are so minor that it would be unfair to make the Respondent go through the CAT process to respond to the Applicant's concerns.
3The Applicant opened this case advising that he had been falsely accused by the Respondent regarding alleged garbage disposal violations in the Applicant’s garage parking space. The Applicant therefore asked for the immediate removal of the compliance charge from their account regarding these alleged garbage disposal violations, correction of the record to reflect that no garbage violation occurred at their unit and a written acknowledgment and apology from the Board for the false allegation and the distress caused.
4During Stage 2 – Mediation, the Applicant shared the remedies he sought for this case; namely, the Respondent would need to: provide the Applicant a written formal acknowledgment from the condominium corporation confirming that the compliance notice was issued in error, correct all internal condominium records to remove any reference suggesting the Applicant was involved in improper garbage storage, non-compliance, or that the Applicant’s unit was subject to monitoring, provide a written apology from the Board acknowledging the distress, confusion, and inconvenience caused by the issuance and prolonged maintenance of the incorrect notice, provide a statement confirming that there are no outstanding warnings, charges, notations, or monitoring statuses associated with the Applicant’s unit, reimburse the Applicant the CAT application and hearing fees, and agree that they will review its procedures for issuing and verifying compliance notices and implement reasonable safeguards to prevent similar errors in the future.
5The Respondent set out to meet the Applicant’s remedial requests. The Respondent admitted that the standard garbage compliance letter was sent to the incorrect unit. They confirmed that no monetary charge, legal fee, compliance cost, lien, or other financial consequence were ultimately imposed on the Applicant’s unit. They also confirmed that no enforcement actions have followed and no ongoing compliance issue exists. Additionally, the Respondent sent a letter of apology in line with the Applicant’s requested remedies, and they sent an email to the Applicant on January 20,2026 advising that, upon receiving the CAT application fee of $75 payment receipt, a reimbursement would be issued to the Applicant. The Respondent later submitted that any remaining complaints by the Applicant are ones that do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as they are related to matters of governance and administration.
6Despite the steps taken during the mediation, the Applicant requested to proceed to Stage 3 – Tribunal Decision on the grounds that the Applicant requested to proceed because he was seeking an order in respect to the last remedy requested which was not addressed by the Respondent in the mediation, namely : Respondent to review its procedures for issuing and verifying compliance notices and implement reasonable safeguards to prevent similar errors in the future.
7Under Rule 34.3 (f) of the CAT’s Rules of Practice, the CAT can close a case in Stage 2 in Stage 2 -Mediation if the Mediator dismisses the case:
(f) the Mediator dismisses the Case (e.g., because the Mediator determines the Case was filed for an improper purpose or that the CAT does not have jurisdiction to deal with the issues in dispute).
8Additionally, Under Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice, “the CAT can close a case at any time in certain situations, including:
(a) Where a Case is about issues that are so minor that it would be unfair to make the Respondent(s) go through the CAT process to respond to the applicant(s)’s concerns;
(b) Where a Case is about issues that the CAT has no legal power to hear or decide;
9On February 03, 2026, I issued a notice of intent to dismiss as this case developments appeared to indicate that the issues in dispute had been resolved. In that notice, I stated that the Applicant brought this case forward due to alleged false accusations regarding garbage disposal violations and alleged improper charges regarding same. These issues appeared to be resolved. I invited submissions from both the Applicant and from the Respondent on whether the case should be dismissed. Each party provided submissions.
10The Applicant submits that this case cannot be moot simply because corrective steps were taken post filing. In his submissions, the Applicant is specifically asking the CAT to make a determination whether the Respondent’s enforcement process complied with internal governance, objective procedural standards, including accuracy of allegations, timeliness of clarification, consistency of communications, and verification before maintaining enforcement assertions. Indeed, in their last submissions, the Applicant reiterated, again, that in their view, “this case concerns whether the enforcement directed at the Applicant’s unit was applied, maintained, and corrected in a manner consistent with procedural fairness,” that the question raised is about the “verification standard before maintaining enforcement against a unit owner” and that “adjudication is necessary to confirm proper standards of enforcement and accountability.”
11The Respondent submits that the Applicant appears to be asking the Tribunal to make a determination regarding Board Governance issues. The CAT’s jurisdiction, set out in Ontario Regulation 179/17 (O. Reg. 179/17), does not extend to Board governance or procedural fairness in enforcement processes. The case law relied on by the Respondent—Chen v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1644, 2022 ONCAT 68 and Mibus v. Harris, 2025 ONCAT 151—supports dismissal where issues fall outside jurisdiction or have become moot.
12I appreciate that when the Applicant filed his application, he had legitimate issues in regards to the compliance and enforcement actions that were taken against him regarding the garbage disposal violations. However, the specific issues that gave rise to the application have been resolved. As already noted, the Respondent admits that the standard garbage compliance letter was sent to the incorrect unit, confirms that no monetary charge, legal fee, compliance cost, lien, or other financial consequence were ultimately imposed on the Applicant’s unit, that no enforcement actions have followed and no ongoing compliance issue exists. The Respondent also sent a letter of apology that reflected the remedial terms that the Applicant requested. Lastly, the Respondent has confirmed once the Applicant advises how they would prefer to receive the funds, as a cheque, or a credit against the common expenses, the Respondent will move forward with payment of $75 tribunal fees. Given the Respondent’s actions, therefore, the issues that gave rise to the dispute have been resolved.
13The issue that the Applicant asserts it remains is one of governance. I agree with the Respondent. The CAT’s jurisdiction is clearly established by O. Reg. 179/17. The CAT can currently accept applications about a range of issues including Condominium Records, Pets and Animals, Vehicles, Parking and Storage, Noise, Odours, Vibration, Light, Smoke and Vapour, other Nuisances as defined in the Corporation’s governing documents and Compliance with Settlement Agreements. The powers of the CAT are limited to issues related to that jurisdiction. Board Governance issues are not included. Furthermore, the case law provided also supports dismissal where issues fall outside jurisdiction.
14Accordingly, I find there are no issues within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction left to resolve, and the case is dismissed.
ORDER
15The Tribunal orders that:
This case is closed in Stage 2 - Mediation under Rule 34.3 and Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice.
Any documents and messages that have been shared for this Case in Stage 1 - Negotiation and / or Stage 2 - Mediation are private and confidential. That means that the Users cannot share, or tell anyone about, messages or documents they received from other Users during these stages without the permission of the other User.
The Users may share a copy of any document they received during the course of this case if required by law, such as to a government organization or a court.
Victoria Romero
SELECT MEMBER ROLE, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: March 17, 2026