Karlinsky v. Schmikal, 2026 ONCAT 89

CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL

DATE: May 14, 2026 CASE: 2025-00824N Citation: Karlinsky v. Schmikal, 2026 ONCAT 89

Order under Rule 4 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s Rules of Practice

Member: Mary Ann Spencer, Member

The Applicant, Linda Karlinsky Self-Represented

The Respondent, Stefan Schmikal Self-Represented

The Intervenor, York Condominium Corporation No. 107 Represented by Michael Campbell, Counsel

Submission Dates: May 6, 2026 to May 13, 2026 Motion made on: May 4, 2026

MOTION ORDER

1The Applicant, Linda Karlinsky, filed Case 2025-00824N alleging that she was experiencing unreasonable noise from the unit owned by the Respondent, Stefan Schmikal. The noise was being created by two children with a medical condition who resided in the unit. On April 20, 2025, during Stage 2 – Mediation, Ms. Karlinsky withdrew her case after being advised that the child primarily responsible for the noise had relocated. Before withdrawing the case, she was advised that some noise would continue while the other child adjusted to their changed environment. Ms. Karlinsky now requests that the case be re-opened, stating she continues to experience noise from the Schmikal unit.

2There is no provision in the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice to re-open a case which was withdrawn by a party. Rule 47.1 states that the Tribunal may re-open a case where a party (i) failed to appear or to participate in a case or (ii) failed to respond to a request of the Tribunal. Rule 47.2 states that such requests must be submitted within 15 days of case closure.

3To support her request, Ms. Karlinsky relies on Rule 4.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice which states that the Tribunal may “vary or waive the application of a Rule on its own initiative or on request of a Party except where to do so is prohibited by law.” I find no reason to vary Rule 47.1, and I am denying the motion. While it appears that Ms. Karlinsky may have submitted her request at this time because of the 15-day requirement set out in Rule 47.2, she acknowledged that before withdrawing her case, she was advised some noise could continue. She wrote “we were informed…that we could expect a quieter environment after a few weeks when the other child adapted.” However, she submitted her request that the case be re-opened only two weeks after it was withdrawn. If the noise she indicates she is experiencing should continue after there has been a more reasonable period for the child who remains at home to adapt, Ms. Karlinsky has the option to submit a new case.

ORDER

4The motion is denied.

Mary Ann Spencer

Member, Condominium Authority Tribunal