Chandaria v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 3079, 2026 ONCAT 80

CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL

DATE: May 1, 2026
CASE: 2025-00365N

Citation: Chandaria v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 3079, 2026 ONCAT 80

Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Member: Laurie Sanford, Member

The Applicant: Ishtar Chandaria
Represented by: Shawn Pulver, Counsel

The Respondent: Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 3079
Represented by: Andrea Lusk, Counsel

Hearing: Written Online Hearing – December 11, 2025 to April 16, 2026

REASONS FOR DECISION

A. INTRODUCTION

1Ishtar Chandaria owns a unit on the 12^th level of Tower 2 of Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 3079 (“TSCC 3079”). TSCC 3079 is in a particularly densely built part of downtown Toronto and Mr. Chandaria’s unit sits within throwing distance from the hotel section of Tower 1 of TSCC 3079 as well as residential units in Tower 1 that are located above the hotel. Tower 2 is also bounded closely on the east and west by other high rise residential units, some with balconies. Mr. Chandaria’s unit has a large, exclusive use common element terrace, measuring about 1700 square feet.

2Mr. Chandaria complains of persistent debris being thrown onto his terrace from units above his. The debris includes cigarette and marijuana butts, garbage, dog feces, often but not always in bags, and chicken wing bones. On various occasions, someone has tossed a full suitcase, an electronic device and a broom onto the terrace. Mr. Chandaria regards this as a nuisance, annoyance or disruption and is also concerned about the possible health and safety consequences of this debris, including the possibility of damage due to falling garbage and the chance of fire. He wants TSCC 3079 to more thoroughly investigate than it has to date to determine the source of the debris.

3TSCC 3079 states that, under its Declaration, the owners are responsible for maintaining exclusive use common elements, including terraces. Its rules prohibit littering or throwing items out of windows or doors. The rules also require owners to clean up after pets. TSCC 3079 granted permission for Mr. Chandaria to install a camera to determine the source of the litter. However, all cameras that would determine the source also point into residences. They had to be removed due to privacy concerns. No useful evidence was obtained from Mr. Chandaria’s cameras. TSCC 3079 maintains that it has conducted a balcony inspection to determine the source of the litter and has sent seven notices to its residents over 14 months, reminding them that throwing things out of windows, doors or balconies is prohibited. TSCC 3079 submits that it has undertaken reasonable steps to identify the source of the debris. It cannot say whether the debris is coming from its residents, from the hotel or from residents of another high rise that it does not control. TSCC 3079 submits that its repeated notices have been effective in reducing the number of complaints. Since it cannot identify the source, TSCC 3079 submits that there is nothing further that it can do. TSCC 3079 also challenges whether, in the circumstances of this case, the applicable nuisance provisions of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) apply.

4For the reasons set out below, I conclude that the throwing of debris onto Mr. Chandaria’s balcony is undoubtedly distressing and distasteful. But the situation does seem to have improved as a result of TSCC 3079’s actions. Given the limited frequency of the debris at present, it does not currently constitute a nuisance, annoyance or disruption. I encourage TSCC 3079 to continue to manage the situation by circulating regular reminders to avoid throwing items out of windows, doors or off balconies. Under the circumstances, no costs will be ordered.

B. ISSUES & ANALYSIS

5The issues in this case may be summarised as follows:

1. What is the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this matter?
2. Does the debris constitute a nuisance, annoyance or disruption?
3. Has TSCC 3079 failed to comply with its Declaration and Rules in relation to Mr. Chandaria’s complaints?
4. Is Mr. Chandaria entitled to a remedy?

Issue 1 – What is the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this matter?

6The Tribunal’s jurisdiction arises under section 1.36 of the Act, which provides that parties may apply to the Tribunal for the resolution of disputes that are prescribed, in this case, under Ontario Regulation 179/17 (the “Regulation”) to the Act. The Regulation, in turn, sets out the subject matter of disputes over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. Subparagraph 1(1)(c.1) of the Regulation gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to resolve disputes concerning subsection 117(2) of the Act or section 26 of Ontario Regulation 48/01 (“O.Reg 48/01”) to the Act. Subsection 117(2) of the Act provides:

No person shall carry on an activity or permit an activity to be carried on in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation if the activity results in the creation of or continuation of,

(a) any unreasonable noise that is a nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation; or

(b) any other prescribed nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation.

7The “other prescribed” nuisance, annoyance or disruption is defined in s. 26 of O.Reg 48/01 and includes odour and smoke, among other things.

8Mr. Chandaria argues that the debris that ends up on his terrace is prescribed as “it triggers aspects of both odour and smoke.” In his submission, the cigarette and marijuana butts and feces cause odour and, if still lit, the butts cause smoke. Mr. Chandaria acknowledges that some of the debris, such as the garbage, suitcase, electronic device and broom, do not fall neatly into the prescribed source of nuisance, annoyance or disruption but he takes the position that “a common-sense approach” should be taken in determining jurisdiction.

9In interpreting a statute, “common-sense” is not a recognised principle. I will consider only those items of debris that create odour or smoke as prospectively being within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This would include the cigarette and marijuana butts, dog feces and chicken bones.

10In this case, there is at least arguably another provision of the Regulation that would apply to give the Tribunal jurisdiction over the non-odour or smoke producing debris. Under subparagraph 1(1)(d)(iii.2) of the Regulation, the Tribunal may hear disputes about, “Provisions that prohibit, restrict or otherwise govern any other nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation.” Rule 4(D) of TSCC 3079’s Rules prohibits anything being thrown out of the windows or doors of the unit or building. Rule 5(A) prohibits littering of the common elements. These rules are broad enough to encompass litter or items that are unreasonable and create a nuisance, annoyance or disruption. However, Mr. Chandaria has chosen not to rely on this provision of the Regulation despite being specifically directed to it and asked for his submissions on how it would affect the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. I cannot impose the jurisdiction on either him or TSCC 3079. Therefore, I will not consider the other items of debris found on Mr. Chandaria’s terrace. Given that the other debris found there is non-recurring, its omission will not materially affect this decision.

11Another jurisdictional issue stems from Mr. Chandaria’s argument that TSCC 3079 has an obligation to enforce its Declaration and Rules, which in this case, Mr. Chandaria argues, obliges it to investigate the violations of the anti-littering rule. It is true that TSCC 3079 has an obligation to enforce its governing documents under subsection 17(3) of the Act. However, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to compel compliance with this subsection does not exist in a vacuum. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction would arise in the context of a dispute over which it has jurisdiction. In this case, that means that the Tribunal would have to find a nuisance, annoyance or disruption before it could consider whether or not a condominium corporation is meeting its obligations under subsection 17(3) of the Act. Given that Mr. Chandaria is not claiming that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to make that finding in relation to TSCC 3079’s anti-littering rule, it follows that the Tribunal cannot compel compliance with that rule.

Issue 2 - Does the debris constitute a nuisance, annoyance or disruption?

12Mr. Chandaria testified that since May, 2024, when he moved in, he has “continued to find various debris” on his terrace. The debris has included cigarette and marijuana butts, some still lit, dog feces and chicken wing bones. Mr. Chandaria has patio furniture and a hot tub on the terrace. He finds this debris interferes with his enjoyment of his terrace by creating a nuisance, annoyance or disruption. He is also concerned that the items thrown onto his terrace could cause damage or fire.

13Mr. Chandaria documented the incidents of thrown debris incidents, and he testified that on November 11, 2024, in response to his complaint, TSCC 3079 sent out a notice to residents that set out “balcony etiquette” and reminded residents not to throw items over the railings. According to Mr. Chandaria, this first notice did not resolve the problem.

14On November 26, 2024, Mr. Chandaria emailed management advising that he had found over 25 cigarette butts on the terrace. He proposed installing security cameras on the terrace that he would angle upward to identify the source of the debris. He felt he could do this without intruding on the privacy of other units. However, after he had installed the cameras, TSCC 3079 asked him to remove them due to what he describes as “privacy concerns” and what TSCC 3079 identifies as complaints received by at least one neighbour. Before the cameras were removed, Mr. Chandaria testified that the cameras recorded items thrown onto his terrace, he believes, from units directly above his.

15On three occasions in December 2024, Mr. Chandaria reported debris on his terrace to TSCC 3079, including bags of feces. In January 2025, there were more bags of feces on his terrace, which he reported to TSCC 3079. Twice in March 2025 and once in May, Mr. Chandaria again complained of dog feces, cigarette butts and miscellaneous other debris, including a beer can, garbage bag and a pair of shorts. Being unsatisfied with the TSCC 3079’s efforts, Mr. Chandaria filed an application with the Tribunal in June 2025. His testimony is that he continued to find cigarette and marijuana butts and other debris on his terrace throughout the summer of 2025.

16In October 2025 and again in December 2025, Mr. Chandaria emailed complaints to TSCC 3079 management. They advised him that a balcony inspection would be scheduled for October 2025 but he was not informed that this inspection had occurred. In December, TSCC 3079 management informed him that they had sent what he believes was a second notice to owners and residents about throwing debris, in particular cigarette butts off their balconies. The notice is detailed and sternly worded. Mr. Chandaria says that despite this notice, he is still finding cigarette butts and other debris on his terrace. Mr. Chandaria’s testimony was supported by the testimony of the man who cleans the terrace.

17Jessica Molina, the licensed condominium manager of TSCC 3079, testified and she disputed some aspects of Mr. Chandaria’s account. Her testimony was that in response to complaints, both from Mr. Chandaria and, initially, from other residents, TSCC 3079 sent a series of 7 notices to owners and residents. The language in the notices became increasingly detailed and strident. In October 2025, she testified that TSCC 3079 conducted a physical inspection of 74 residential units that are above Mr. Chandaria’s unit. The inspection included the balconies.

18The inspection of the units and common element balconies was to determine the presence of pets, pet waste, smoking paraphernalia, balcony furniture and the state of each balcony, which was documented with a photograph. The inspection disclosed the presence of 6 pets, 6 units with evidence of animal feces or urine, although none with evidence of un-collected feces, and 4 units with cigarette butts on the balconies, which appear to have landed from elsewhere.

19It was Ms. Molina’s testimony that TSCC 3079 received one or two complaints from other occupants about debris on balconies between October 2024 and May 2025, but it has received no complaints from other occupants since May 2025. Ms. Molina also testified that since the registration of TSCC 3079 in August 2024 through December 2025 Mr. Chandaria has made between 10 and 12 complaints over 14 months. She testified that there have been stretches of no complaints, some of which lasted several months. Between May 15, 2025 and September 9, 2025, there were no complaints by Mr. Chandaria.

20Ms. Molina testified that TSCC 3079 considered installing cameras on the common elements. It has asked for camera footage from neighbours. The problem is, according to Ms. Molina, that no one can install cameras to record the source of the debris without the camera pointing into residential units. Ms. Molina’s testimony was corroborated by the testimony of the president of the board of TSCC 3079.

21TSCC 3079 concludes that it is not possible for it to determine whether the debris that litters Mr. Chandaria’s terrace comes from units within TSCC 3079’s control or not. It submits that it has taken reasonable action to investigate and address the problem and that the notices it has sent to residents have had the effect of reducing the incidents of litter landing on Mr. Chandaria’s terrace.

22Is the debris from the smoking butts and the animal waste that lands on Mr. Chandaria’s terrace unreasonable and, if so, is it a nuisance, annoyance or disruption? I acknowledge that it is distressing and, indeed, disgusting. In this case, any incident of feces or potentially dangerous cigarette or marijuana butts landing on Mr. Chandaria’s terrace is of concern. Taken together, and considering the nature of the debris, I conclude the debris on Mr. Chandaria has, at times, been unreasonable. Not everything that is offensive, or unreasonable is, at law, a nuisance, annoyance or disruption. Elements to be considered in determining whether the legal test has been met include the frequency of the events, the duration of them and the degree to which they are unreasonable.

23TSCC 3079 permits smoking and pets in the units and common elements. In that environment, it is to be expected that there will be cigarette and marijuana butts and occasional dog waste found on the premises. The incidents of debris landing on Mr. Chandaria’s terrace go beyond that. The incidents of debris apparently increased in late 2024 and again in the fall of 2025. However, these incidents, while they continue, have lessened, perhaps as a result of the notices sent by TSCC 3079, coupled with its inspection of the premises. It seems plausible that the actions of TSCC 3079 have had the intended effect of managing the situation. I conclude that the debris landing on Mr. Chandaria’s terrace, had it continued at an elevated rate, might have constituted a nuisance, annoyance or disruption. However, at present, the debris does not meet that threshold.

24In view of this conclusion, it is not necessary to consider TSCC 3079’s alternative arguments about the applicability of subsection 117(2) of the Act to this situation or its other alternative submissions.

Issue 3 - Has TSCC 3079 failed to comply with its Declaration and Rules in relation to Mr. Chandaria’s complaints?

25I have reviewed the language of the 7 notices sent by TSCC 3079 to its residents warning against throwing litter, including cigarette butts, from windows, doors or balconies. The language has grown increasingly detailed, and the most recent notice was very explicit about the dangers of discarding lit butts from the balconies. Considering that and the other testimony from Ms. Molina about the actions taken or considered by TSCC 3079, I conclude that it has taken reasonable steps to investigate the source of the debris and to enforce its rules against littering. TSCC 3079 has concluded that it is not possible to determine the source of the litter or whether the source is within or outside its control. While I accept that, I do note that something has caused the incidence of debris tossing to decline. I encourage TSCC 3079 to continue to actively manage the situation, including by regularly reminding residents to avoid throwing debris out of windows, doors or from balconies.

Issue 4 - Is Mr. Chandaria entitled to a remedy?

26Mr. Chandaria has failed to prove his case and therefore is not entitled to a remedy. Both parties made submissions about costs. Under Rule 48.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, the Tribunal will generally not order one party to reimburse another for legal fees or disbursements incurred in a proceeding. Exceptions may be made where costs are directly related to some behaviour that was unreasonable, undertaken for an improper purpose or caused a delay or additional expense. No such circumstance occurred in this case, and no costs order will be issued.

C. ORDER

27The application is dismissed.

Laurie Sanford

Member, Condominium Authority Tribunal