CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: May 5, 2026 CASE: 2025-00755N
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Mary Ann Spencer, Member
The Applicant, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2121 Represented by Francesco Deo, Counsel
The Respondents, Frederick Marrese Self-Represented
Joseph Marrese Did Not Participate
Hearing: Written Online Hearing – February 3, 2026 to April 24, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. INTRODUCTION
1Respondent Frederick Marrese is the non-resident owner of a unit of Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2121 (“TSCC 2121” or the “corporation”). The unit is occupied by his son, Respondent Joseph Marrese. TSCC 2121 alleges that Joseph Marrese has been creating a nuisance, annoyance or disruption by smoking in the unit, in breach of section 117 (2) (b) of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) and related sections of the corporation’s declaration and rules. It further alleges that Frederick Marrese has permitted the smoking activity to be carried on in breach of section 117 (2) (b) of the Act; he has failed to take reasonable steps to obtain Joseph Marrese’s compliance. It requests that the Tribunal order both Respondents’ compliance.
2This case proceeded directly to Stage 3 – Tribunal Decision because Joseph Marrese failed to join this matter. I am satisfied that he was properly served with notice of the proceeding. Frederick Marrese did join the case but failed to respond to my initial messages. However, he posted a request in the Tribunal’s online system in which he advised that he was finding using the system challenging and asked that I call him. He also briefly set out his position in this matter. I denied the request, referred him to the Tribunal guide on the use of the system, and advised that the hearing could be conducted by audio or video conference if necessary. He did not respond. At my request, staff attempted to contact him, leaving a message.
3Notwithstanding that I posted several messages urging him to participate, Mr. Marrese did not respond. Therefore, the hearing in this matter proceeded without the participation of either Respondent and my decision in this matter is based on the evidence and submissions of TSCC 2121 and the information set out in Mr. Marrese’s request.
4I find that Joseph Marrese, by smoking in the unit he occupies and/or on its exclusive-use common element balcony, has breached section 117 (2) (b) of the Act; Part Three, section 12 (a) and Part Five, section 16 1. of the corporation’s declaration; rule 1.32 of the corporation’s rules; and, its “Smoke-Free (Including Cannabis) Environment Rules.” I order his compliance with these provisions. I also find that Frederick Marrese, in breach of section 117 (2) (b) of the Act, has permitted Joseph Marrese to create a nuisance. I order him to take reasonable steps to obtain Joseph Marrese’s compliance as required by section 119 (2) of the Act. I also order the Respondents, jointly and severally, to pay $7,650 in costs.
B. BACKGROUND
5TSCC 2121 is a smoke-free building. On March 16, 2018, it enacted its “Smoke-Free (Including Cannabis) Environment Rules” which prohibit smoking in the units, on the corporation’s interior common elements, the exclusive-use common elements, and within nine metres of any building or structure on the property. Before these rules were enacted, rule 1.32 of the corporation’s rules, which is still in effect, prohibited smoking on the common elements or exclusive-use common elements, which include balconies.
6The “Smoke-Free (Including Cannabis) Environment Rules” include a provision for legacy smokers. Upon notification to the board of directors, existing smoking use within a unit could be “grandfathered” for a period of four years from the effective date of the rules. Joseph Marrese has resided in Frederick Marrese’s unit since 2015 and was registered as a legacy smoker. However, that exemption to the rules ended on March 16, 2022, a fact acknowledged by Frederick Marrese in the request he sent to the Tribunal.
7TSCC 2121’s evidence is that Joseph Marrese has continued to smoke in the unit and/or on its balcony; the corporation has received and verified numerous complaints about smoke emanating from it. Legal letters requesting compliance with the corporation’s smoking-related rules were sent to Frederick Marrese on March 10, 2025, and July 4, 2025. However, TSCC 2121 continued to receive complaints, including during this proceeding.
C. ISSUES & ANALYSIS
8The issues to be decided in this matter are:
- Has Respondent Joseph Marrese failed to comply with s. 117 (2) (b) of the Act and the provisions in TSCC 2121’s governing documents regarding smoking? If so, what remedy should the Tribunal order?
- Has Respondent Frederick Marrese failed to comply with s. 117 (2) (b) of the Act by permitting the smoking activity and failing to take steps to obtain Joseph Marrese’s compliance as required by s. 119 (2) of the Act and the provisions of TSCC 2121’s governing documents related to his responsibility to ensure his tenant’s compliance? If so, what remedy should the Tribunal order?
- Should the Tribunal award costs and/or compensation for damages in this matter?
Issue 1: Has Respondent Joseph Marrese failed to comply with s. 117 (2) (b) of the Act and the provisions in TSCC 2121’s governing documents regarding smoking? If so, what remedy should the Tribunal order?
9Steven Allard, TSCC 2121’s condominium manager, and Bertan Kazazic, the president of TSCC 2121’s board of directors, testified on behalf of the corporation.
10Both Mr. Allard and Mr. Kazazic testified that smoking in the Marrese unit has been a long-standing issue. They both testified that the corporation has received multiple complaints from residents about smoke and/or the odour of cigarettes and/or cannabis entering their units or present in the hallway on the floor where the Marrese unit is located.
11Incident reports dated between August 24, 2024, and March 3, 2026, which document the investigation of 20 resident complaints, were submitted as evidence by TSCC 2121. Mr. Allard testified that these incidents do not comprise all the complaints the corporation has received but are those which were verified by security staff who, in accordance with corporation policy, investigated by attending at the unit. A number of the reports indicate that not only were security staff able to determine that the smoke/odour was emanating from the Marrese unit but, in some instances, they observed haze or clouds of smoke in the hallway. In particular, the May 20, 2025, report indicates that security staff had difficulty breathing due to intense smoke at the unit door. In this regard, Mr. Kazazic testified he personally detected a strong smell of cigarette smoke emanating from the Marrese unit when he and a fellow board member conducted renovation deficiency inspections in the hallway on September 7, 2024, December 11, 2024, and April 21, 2025.
12The security incident reports indicate that Joseph Marrese did not always respond when security staff attempted to contact him after verifying the presence of smoke and/or odour at his unit. However, the report dated August 13, 2025, states that he did speak to staff through his door when they investigated a resident complaint about smoke in the hallway. The report indicates that he denied smoking in the unit but stated that he had been smoking on the balcony.
13In addition to the security incident reports, the corporation submitted a March 2025 e-mail thread of correspondence between a unit owner and Mr. Allard. The owner notes that the smell of smoke had been an ongoing issue for the tenants occupying his unit and asks what the corporation is doing to address the issue. I note that the owner advised Mr. Allard that the smoke penetration into the unit was such that it had interrupted his tenants’ sleep and caused coughing.
14Further, on January 15, 2025, when fan coil maintenance was being performed throughout the building, a security guard and the maintenance contractor entered the Marrese unit. The maintenance report prepared by the contractor indicates that the unit occupant was smoking at the time they entered. Photographs taken by the security staff show an ashtray full of cigarette butts as well as lighters on a table.
15Based on the evidence set out in the preceding paragraphs, I find that Joseph Marrese has breached TSCC 2121’s “Smoke Free (Including Cannabis) Environment Rules” by smoking in the unit he occupies and on its exclusive-use common element balcony. I note that smoking on the balcony is also a breach of the corporation’s rule 1.32.
16I also find that Joseph Marrese’s smoking activity is in violation of section 117 (2) (b) of the Act which states “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 any other prescribed nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets of the corporation, if any.” Smoke and odour are among the items prescribed in section 26 of Ontario Regulation 48/01. The evidence of multiple complaints from residents about cigarette and/or cannabis smoke and/or odour entering their units and/or their presence in the common element hallway indicates that there has been a substantial interference with the quiet enjoyment of both their units and the common elements. Similarly, I find that Joseph Marrese has breached Part Five, section 16 1. of TSCC 2121’s declaration which states that no unit shall be occupied or used in a manner that will unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of other owners of the common elements or other units.
17Further, based on his admission on August 15, 2025, that he was smoking on the unit’s exclusive-use common element balcony, I find that Joseph Marrese has breached Part Three, section 12 (a) of the corporation’s declaration which, in part, states that no condition shall be permitted to exist or activity be carried out on the common elements that will unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment by other owners of the common elements and other units.
18Joseph Marrese is required to comply with the provisions of the Act and TSCC 2121’s governing documents. Section 119 (1) of the Act sets out the requirement that owners and occupiers of units comply with the Act, the declaration, by-laws, and the rules of a corporation:
A corporation, the directors, officers and employees of a corporation, a declarant, the lessor of a leasehold condominium corporation, an owner, an occupier of a unit and a person having an encumbrance against a unit and its appurtenant common interest shall comply with this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules.
I am ordering Mr. Marrese’s immediate and permanent compliance with section 117 (2) (b) of the Act, Part Three, section 12 (a) and Part Five, section 16 1. of TSCC 2121’s declaration, its “Smoke Free (Including Cannabis) Environment Rules”, and its rule 1.32.
Issue 2: Has Respondent Frederick Marrese failed to comply with s. 117 (2) (b) of the Act by permitting the smoking activity and failing to take steps to obtain Joseph Marrese’s compliance as required by s. 119 (2) of the Act and the provisions of TSCC 2121’s governing documents related to his responsibility to ensure his tenant’s compliance? If so, what remedy should the Tribunal order?
19As noted above in paragraph 16, s. 117 (2) (b) of the Act states that no person “shall permit an activity to be carried on” in a unit or the common elements which results in the creation of a nuisance, annoyance or disruption. The corporation alleges that owner Frederick Marrese has permitted Joseph Marrese’s smoking activity in the Marrese unit.
20Mr. Allard testified that the corporation notified Frederick Marrese on multiple occasions about Joseph Marrese’s smoking in violation of the corporation’s rules. The evidence is that the previous condominium manager sent e-mails to Frederick Marrese on May 9, 2023, and November 13, 2023, although I note that these e-mails have no subject matter and only ask him to call the manager. However, a further e-mail dated June 19, 2024, clearly sets out the smoking violation and asks Mr. Marrese to take steps to obtain his son’s compliance with the rules.
21When the smoking activity continued, compliance letters were sent to Frederick Marrese from the corporation’s counsel on March 10, 2025, and July 4, 2025. The letters state that the corporation continued to receive complaints about smoking and set out the owner’s responsibility to take steps to ensure unit occupants comply with the governing documents. The July 4, 2025, letter advises that a further nine complaints had been received after the March letter was issued and states that if the smoking continued, the matter would be escalated. Both letters advise that the governing documents require the owner to indemnify the corporation for its costs. I note that both Frederick Marrese, in his request to the Tribunal, and TSCC 2121’s counsel advised that Mr. Marrese has reimbursed TSCC 2121 for some of the costs it incurred. Mr. Marrese indicated he paid the corporation in May 2025 but refused to pay when invoiced for further costs.
22In his request, Frederick Marrese stated, “we have stopped smoking in the unit” and “only smoke outdoors.” He stated his belief that his son Joseph was being harassed by condominium management and characterized the security guards’ attempts to get Joseph to respond by knocking on his door when they investigated complaints as “ridiculous requests” and an invasion of privacy. He stated that he had canvassed the unit’s immediate neighbours, none of whom indicated they had made complaints.
23Notwithstanding Mr. Marrese’s assertion that the smoking activity has stopped, the corporation received additional complaints about smoking in the unit after the July 4, 2025, compliance letter was sent; it verified complaints it received in July 2025, August 2025, and March 2026.
24Section 119 (1) of the Act sets out an owner’s obligation to comply with a corporation’s governing documents. Section 119 (2) of the Act requires an owner to “take all reasonable steps to ensure that an occupier of the owner’s unit and all invitees, agents and employees of the owner or occupier comply with this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules.” This latter requirement is also set out in Part Five, section 16 2. of TSCC 2121’s declaration. Based on the evidence of Joseph Marrese’s continuing non-compliance with the smoking-related rules, and in the absence of any evidence of what efforts, if any, Frederick Marrese has made to obtain his son’s compliance, I find that Frederick Marrese has failed to comply with s. 117 (2) (b) of the Act; he has permitted the creation of a nuisance in his unit. Therefore, I am ordering his compliance and, as set out in section 119 (2) of the Act, I am ordering him to take all reasonable steps to obtain Joseph Marrese’s compliance with the corporation’s smoking-related rules.
Issue 3: Should the Tribunal award costs and/or compensation for damages in this matter?
25TSCC 2121’s counsel submitted that the corporation has incurred approximately $34,000 in legal fees, of which $6,998.98 represents fees incurred before this proceeding began. I note that the $34,000 is an estimate because the corporation has not received a final invoice. The corporation requests $15,000, representing $10,000 in respect of the legal fees associated with this proceeding and $5,000 in respect of its pre-hearing legal expenses which relate to the provision of advice to the corporation, preparation of the application to the Tribunal and of proposals in anticipation of the first stages of the Tribunal’s processes.
26Section 1.44 (2) of the Act states that an order for costs shall be made in accordance with the rules of the Tribunal. The cost‑related rules of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice applicable to this case are:
48.1 If a Case is not resolved by Settlement Agreement or Consent Order and a CAT Member makes a final Decision, the unsuccessful Party will be required to pay the successful Party’s CAT fees unless the CAT member decides otherwise.
48.2 The CAT generally will not order one Party to reimburse another Party for legal fees or disbursements (“costs”) incurred in the course of the proceeding. However, where appropriate, the CAT may order a Party to pay to another Party all or part of their costs, including costs that were directly related to a Party’s behaviour that was unreasonable, undertaken for an improper purpose, or that caused a delay or additional expense.
27I note that the corporation did not submit invoices and therefore it was somewhat unclear whether any of the request for pre-hearing legal expenses should be considered under s. 1.44 (1) 3 of the Act, which states the Tribunal may order compensation for damages incurred by a party to the proceeding as a result of an act of non-compliance. These damages can include legal fees incurred to obtain compliance, not including costs related to CAT proceedings. Given the corporation’s explanation of the services it received, which relate to these proceedings, I have determined that the claim for pre-hearing legal expenses should be considered as a cost request.
28The award of costs is discretionary. In determining whether costs should be awarded, I have considered the factors set out in the “Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Approach to Ordering Costs” which include the conduct of all parties and representatives, whether the parties attempted to resolve the issue in dispute before the CAT case was filed, the potential impact an order for costs would have on the parties, and the provisions of the corporation’s governing documents.
29TSCC 2121 was successful in this case and therefore I will order $150 in costs, the amount of the Tribunal fees it paid.
30I also find that an award of legal fees is warranted in this case. Frederick Marrese was advised of Joseph Marrese’s smoking violations by the corporation’s condominium manager multiple times before the matter was escalated to counsel. However, notwithstanding counsel’s communication with him on March 10, 2025, and July 4, 2025, the corporation continued to receive and verify complaints about smoke emanating from the Marrese unit, including one instance in August 2025, when Joseph Marrese admitted to smoking on the balcony and incidents in March 2026 while this proceeding was in process.
31Further, not only did Frederick Marrese not participate in this proceeding, but there was no mediation in this case because Joseph Marrese did not join this matter. Had he done so, it is conceivable that the parties could have resolved the issue at an earlier stage without the necessity of a hearing and thereby mitigated the corporation’s costs.
32The estimated $27,000 in legal fees incurred during this proceeding represents approximately 70 hours of work. I find this to be disproportionate for what was an uncontested proceeding in which only two witnesses testified and no cross-examination took place. I also note that some of the $6,998.98 in pre-hearing legal fees appear to have been discretionary; for example, fees for preparation of positions before it was known whether there would be a negotiation or mediation proceeding in this matter. I recognize that legal costs not awarded will be added to the operating costs of the corporation and expensed to its owners, including those who have been disturbed by the smoking activity in the Marrese unit. In these circumstances, I award costs of $7,500. With the addition of the $150 I am ordering in respect of Tribunal fees, the cost award totals $7,650.
33I am ordering that the cost award be paid to TSCC 2121 on a joint and several basis by Joseph and Frederick Marrese, both of whom I have found failed to comply with the provisions of the Act and the corporation’s governing documents.
D. ORDER
34The Tribunal Orders that:
Joseph Marrese shall comply with section 117 (2) (b) of the Act; Part Three, section 12 (a) and Part Five, section 16 1. of TSCC 2121’s declaration; TSCC 2121’s “Smoke Free (Including Cannabis) Environment” rules; and TSCC 2121’s rule 1.32 by immediately and permanently ceasing all smoking activity in the unit he occupies, on the exclusive-use common elements, on the corporation’s interior common elements, or outdoors within 9 meters of any building or structure on the property.
Frederick Marese shall comply with section 117 (2) (b) of the Act and, as required by section 119 (2) of the Act, shall take all reasonable steps to obtain Joseph Marese’s compliance with the provisions set out above in section 1 of paragraph 34.
Within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order, Joseph Marrese and Frederick Marrese, on a joint and several basis, shall pay $7,650 in costs to TSCC 2121.
Mary Ann Spencer
Member, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: May 5, 2026