OCAT 2026

The applicant, a unit owner, filed a nuisance application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal against the respondent condominium corporation regarding a request to remove a portable basketball net.

The Tribunal returned the application, noting it lacked jurisdiction under the Condominium Act, 1998 and O. Reg. 179/17, and asked the applicant to identify a relevant provision.

The applicant resubmitted without updating the application.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application regarding a dispute over condominium records.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, citing concerns that the proceeding was commenced for an improper purpose or fell outside its jurisdiction.

After reviewing submissions from both parties, the Tribunal found that a legitimate dispute regarding the October 18, 2025 records request remained within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal ordered that the application proceed and not be dismissed at this stage.

The applicant, a former board director, filed an application against the condominium corporation and a current director regarding the handling of noise complaints.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the issues were already being addressed in another open Tribunal case involving the individuals allegedly causing the nuisance.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an improper use of the Tribunal, noting it is unfair to allow two cases by the same applicant to proceed based on the same facts.

The applicant filed an application against a condominium management company regarding noise generated by building machinery.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application because it lacked jurisdiction over noise nuisances caused by machinery rather than a person's activity, and because the applicant named the management company instead of the condominium corporation.

The applicant failed to address these deficiencies after being issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant unit owner filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal disputing a chargeback for water damage repairs and related legal fees.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that its jurisdiction over chargebacks is limited to specific areas and does not include chargebacks for water damage repairs.

The application was dismissed under Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a records application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal against the respondent, from whom they purchased a unit.

The applicant alleged the respondent sold the unit without filing a declaration and requested disclosure statements.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the respondent was not a registered condominium corporation and the requested records did not fall within the prescribed disputes under Ontario Regulation 179/17.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal requesting various condominium records, including board meeting minutes, a security services contract, and a management contract.

The parties agreed to settle the case during mediation.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to release the requested records to the applicant within five business days at no cost.

The applicant condominium owner requested core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to provide the records or a board response within the required timeframe, only providing them after significant delay and after tribunal proceedings had commenced.

The tribunal found the delay constituted a refusal without reasonable excuse and ordered the respondent to pay a $750 penalty and $200 in costs.