Condominium Authority Tribunal

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against the respondent unit owner for violating rules regarding pets, balcony use, and noise.

The respondent, who had vacated the unit prior to the hearing, did not participate.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the rules by failing to clean up dog excrement and cigarette butts on his balcony, which interfered with the neighbour below, and by creating unreasonable noise during domestic disputes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the rules if he returns to the unit and awarded $150 in Tribunal fees to the applicant, but denied the applicant's claim for over $7,000 in legal costs because pursuing the hearing after the respondent vacated was unreasonable.

The applicant filed an application alleging harassment and unreasonable nuisances in the condominium's gym area.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal previously issued a jurisdictional order requiring the applicant to update the application to identify relevant provisions in the governing documents and remove irrelevant issues.

The applicant failed to comply with the order, removing necessary details instead of providing the required information.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19 of its Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to remove her 28.80 kg dog, Murphy, and to cease bringing other large dogs onto the property in breach of the pet rules.

The respondent claimed she was entitled to keep Murphy as an emotional support animal under the Human Rights Code and that the rules did not prohibit visiting dogs.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the rules by operating a dog-walking business and bringing other large dogs onto the property, ordering her to cease this conduct.

However, the Tribunal held that the respondent established a disability and a need for accommodation, allowing her to keep Murphy.

The applicant was awarded partial costs.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request.

During mediation, the respondent provided all requested records.

The applicant sought to amend records and raised governance issues, which fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and, after reviewing submissions, dismissed the application as all requested records had been provided and the remaining issues were outside its jurisdiction.

The parties reached a settlement in Stage 3 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the tenant to comply with the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules regarding nuisance, parking, and storage, subject to specific exemptions for the tenant's business operations.

The tenant was also ordered to pay $13,000 in costs to the corporation.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against the respondent unit owners regarding smoke odours allegedly causing a nuisance.

At the Stage 3 hearing, the respondents clarified that they are co-owners and that a tenant currently resides in the unit.

Because the tenant was not named as a party, the Tribunal dismissed the application and directed the applicant to refile the application naming the tenant, with filing fees waived.

The applicant condominium owner filed a complaint against the respondent condominium corporation, alleging that a security light affixed to a neighbouring unit created a nuisance by illuminating her backyard and infiltrating her bedroom.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the continuous, bright illumination constituted an unreasonable nuisance under section 117(2)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to engage an electrical contractor to modify or replace the lighting to minimize spillage onto the applicant's property, and awarded the applicant $150 for Tribunal fees, while dismissing her claim for $20,000 in damages.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order for the permanent removal of the respondent's dog, alleging the respondent allowed the dog to defecate on her balcony and washed the waste onto the balcony below, creating a nuisance.

The respondent failed to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent violated the condominium's rules regarding pets and nuisance.

The Tribunal ordered the permanent removal of the dog within 30 days and awarded $200 in costs for the filing fee, but declined to award the requested legal costs on a full indemnity basis.

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

The applicant requested to withdraw the case on the basis that the respondent tenant had given notice to terminate their tenancy.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed, with a provision that it could be reopened if the respondent did not vacate the premises by the specified date.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant unit owner requested audited financial statements from the respondent condominium corporation for the 2023-2024 fiscal year.

The owners had previously unanimously agreed to waive the requirement for an audit for that year.

The applicant later attempted to rescind her approval of the waiver midway through the year.

The Tribunal held that there is no mechanism to rescind a waiver midway through a fiscal year, and therefore no audited financial statements existed to be provided.

However, because the respondent only provided other requested records after the applicant paid the fee to move the case to Stage 3, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant's $200 Tribunal fees.

The applicant, a unit owner, requested a copy of the new condominium management contract and bid quotations from the respondent condominium corporation.

The corporation delayed providing the records until the mediation stage of the Tribunal process, citing the need to protect the integrity of the procurement process.

The Tribunal found that the delay amounted to a refusal without a reasonable excuse, as the procurement process was already complete when the request was made.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to pay a $125 penalty and $200 in costs for the applicant's filing fees.

The applicant filed a nuisance application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging harassment in the condominium's gym.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify relevant governing documents, raised issues outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and included irrelevant documents.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed conditionally, ordering the applicant to amend the application within 14 days to remove records requests, repair issues, and irrelevant documents, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought an application alleging that the respondents, the tenants in the unit above, created unreasonable noise through their daily living activities.

The applicant relied on her own testimony and unrecorded decibel readings, while an acoustic study showed the flooring met building code requirements.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the noise resulted from ordinary activities of daily living and the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the noise was objectively unreasonable.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for records related to a garage membrane project and other expenditures.

The respondent condominium corporation provided some records late and argued the applicant was on a fishing expedition.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not on a fishing expedition but concluded the respondent had provided all the records it was required to keep.

The applicant was awarded $200 in Tribunal fees due to the respondent's delay in providing the initial records.

The applicant filed four applications with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding harassment, records requests, unit access, and resident status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the harassment allegations lacked connection to the governing documents, the records request was improperly filed as a nuisance dispute, and unit access and resident status were outside its jurisdiction.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal disputing a $15.00 estimated fee for half an hour of work to prepare a non-core condominium record.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the issue was so minor it would be unfair to require the respondent to participate in the process.

The Tribunal also noted that Ontario Regulation 48/01 provides a mechanism to reconcile actual costs if the work takes less than 30 minutes.

Finding the issues either too minor or outside its jurisdiction, the Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal requesting the source information used for an allegedly defamatory letter.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because the request was for information rather than a record the condominium corporation is required to maintain, placing it outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant did not respond to the reasons for dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant requested records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties agreed to settle the case during Stage 2 mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order confirming that the respondent delivered the requested records and ordering the respondent to pay $450 in costs to the applicant.