OCAT 2026

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against a non-resident owner and his tenant son for breaching the corporation's smoke-free rules.

The tenant repeatedly smoked cigarettes and cannabis in the unit and on the balcony, causing a nuisance to other residents.

The owner failed to take reasonable steps to ensure his tenant's compliance.

As the respondents did not participate in the hearing, the Tribunal proceeded uncontested.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to permanently cease smoking on the premises and ordered the owner to take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance.

The respondents were ordered to pay $7,650 in costs jointly and severally.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

Prior to the Stage 3 Tribunal Decision, the applicant informed the Tribunal that the issues in dispute had been resolved and requested to withdraw the case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed without costs, noting that all settlement-related communications remain confidential.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

Shortly after the hearing began, the parties requested an adjournment to explore settlement.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that the dispute was settled and requested to withdraw the case on a without costs basis.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed under Rule 43.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking access to condominium records.

During the mediation stage, the respondent corporation provided records and stated no further records existed, which the applicant disputed.

The applicant subsequently advised she did not wish to pursue the case to the next stage, resulting in the tribunal closing the case.

The applicant, a condominium owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding persistent debris, including cigarette butts and dog feces, being thrown onto his exclusive use terrace from units above.

The applicant argued this constituted a nuisance and that the respondent condominium corporation failed to adequately investigate and enforce its rules.

The Tribunal found that while the debris was distressing, the respondent had taken reasonable steps to manage the situation by issuing notices and conducting inspections, which reduced the frequency of incidents.

The Tribunal concluded the debris did not currently meet the threshold of a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption under the Condominium Act, 1998, and dismissed the application.

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a chargeback related to repair and maintenance issues with common elements, specifically ice build-up on balconies and mould.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of proposed dismissal under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that repair and maintenance issues fall under sections 89 to 92 of the Condominium Act, 1998, which are outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction as set out in Ontario Regulation 179/17.

The applicant unit owner filed a nuisance application against the respondent condominium corporation, disputing a $3,125.02 chargeback for damage to a common elements garage door.

The applicant alleged the damage was caused by the corporation's failure to maintain a ramp.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application without a hearing, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the dispute related to physical damage to the common elements under section 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, which falls outside the Tribunal's prescribed authority.

The applicant brought two cases before the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding requests for condominium records.

The parties reached an agreement through the Tribunal's online dispute resolution system to resolve both cases.

The Tribunal issued a consent order closing the cases and ordering the respondent condominium corporation to pay $3,000 to the applicant.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application challenging a compliance letter issued by the respondent corporation alleging she breached its Harassment Rule.

The applicant argued the corporation lacked the authority to issue the letter and failed to follow proper procedures, but explicitly stated she was not asking the Tribunal to determine if her conduct actually constituted a nuisance or harassment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding the dispute was about governance and enforcement procedures rather than a dispute over a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption under the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal declined to award costs to the respondent but cautioned the applicant against using the Tribunal for governance matters in the future.

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

The applicant was granted permission to move the matter to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fee within the prescribed 15-day period, despite a warning.

Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the case as abandoned pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a unit owner and licensed paralegal, requested the condominium corporation's most recent unaudited monthly financial statement.

The corporation initially refused to provide the record, mistakenly believing it was not obligated to do so because it was a non-core record.

The Tribunal found this refusal was without reasonable excuse and ordered a $500 penalty against the corporation.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to an unredacted copy of the record and lacked jurisdiction to order personal liability against the directors.

Due to the applicant's unreasonable conduct and escalating demands during the proceedings, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay $2,327.12 in costs to the corporation, while awarding the applicant $75 for Tribunal fees.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 (Mediation) of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution process.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the application dismissed and directed the respondent condominium corporation to reimburse the applicant $1,000 for the costs of the proceeding.

The applicant, a tenant, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the condominium corporation failed to respond to complaints about unreasonable smoke and odour.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of its Rules of Practice, finding that under section 1.36(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, only an owner or mortgagee may apply for resolution of a prescribed dispute.

As a tenant, the applicant lacked standing to bring the application.

The applicant failed to pay the fee to advance her condominium dispute to Stage 3 adjudication within the required 15-day period, having initially intended to withdraw the case pending a human rights mediation.

When the respondent raised the issue of costs, the applicant requested to reopen the case and proceed to adjudication.

Applying the Frey factors, the Tribunal granted the extension of time, noting the applicant's bona fide intention to proceed, the minimal 10-day delay, the respondent's consent to the extension, and the overriding interest of justice in avoiding the need to restart the entire process.

The applicant filed a records case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal, claiming her unit ledger inaccurately included a $2,500 chargeback for a common element repair.

She brought a motion for an interim order to stay the collection of the chargeback pending the outcome of the records case.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it lacks jurisdiction to hear or decide disputes related to chargebacks flowing from maintenance and repair issues, and therefore could not grant the requested relief.

The applicant sought the production of board meeting minutes from the respondent condominium corporation.

During the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution process, the parties reached a settlement at the mediation stage.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the corporation to produce properly ratified minutes recording decisions about a cleaning contract and parking garage repairs within 14 days.

The parties also agreed to waive confidentiality of documents shared during negotiation and mediation.

The applicant filed a records case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The application was incomplete and the applicant failed to correct the deficiencies within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the underlying records requests were deemed abandoned under s. 13.10 of O. Reg. 48/01.

The applicant requested the Tribunal Chair recuse himself due to alleged bias, which was denied.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as the records requests were deemed abandoned.

The applicant, a tenant of a condominium unit, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal on their own behalf.

The Tribunal reviewed the application and determined that under section 1.36 of the Condominium Act, 1998, only owners and condominium corporations have standing to apply.

As the applicant was a tenant and not acting as an agent for the owner, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium owner sought records relating to an insurance claim and a $25,000 chargeback for a grease fire.

The respondent condominium corporation provided some records but withheld others, citing the exemption for contemplated litigation under s. 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent had provided all records to which the applicant was entitled and reasonably relied on the exemption for the withheld correspondence, given the applicant's explicit threats of litigation.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The Applicant, a condominium owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the Respondent corporation refused to provide requested records without reasonable excuse, provided inadequate records, and charged unreasonable fees.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent's minor delays and waiting for third-party documents did not constitute a refusal without reasonable excuse, and thus no penalty was warranted.

While most records provided were deemed adequate, the Tribunal found the record of notices of lease to be inadequate under s. 55(1) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal upheld the Respondent's $30 hourly labour fee for record production as reasonable and awarded the Applicant $200 in costs for partial success.