Condominium Authority Tribunal

The applicant submitted two applications to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a request for condominium records.

During the review process, the applicant sold his unit and ceased to be an owner.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the applications because the applicant no longer had an interest as an owner under s. 13.3(1)(a) of O. Reg. 48/01 and s. 55(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant did not respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications.

The applicant filed two cases with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request and issues with a Periodic Information Certificate.

The matters were merged and proceeded to mediation.

The applicant failed to move the matter to Stage 3 within the permitted time despite reminders.

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

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

The matter proceeded to mediation, where the mediator determined the case was filed for an improper purpose, noting the applicant's persistent focus on governance issues, defamatory allegations against the board, and continued harassment of board members.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

After reviewing submissions, the Tribunal found the application was initiated in bad faith and for an improper purpose, as the applicant sought to use the records request process to advance grievances against the board rather than to obtain records.

The application was dismissed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice and section 1.41(1) of the Condominium Act.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application, arguing it was an abuse of process because the applicant had filed a concurrent application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) regarding the same parking enforcement issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while there was some factual overlap, the issues were not identical, as the HRTO application focused on discrimination and harassment while the CAT application focused strictly on the enforcement of the condominium's parking provisions.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the CAT application to proceed would not cause substantial prejudice to the respondent and would provide a timely resolution to the parking enforcement issue, over which the CAT has exclusive jurisdiction.

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

The applicant agreed to pay a total of $3,746.89 to settle outstanding locker rental arrears, lien fees, and chargebacks.

The respondent agreed to discharge the lien registered on the applicant's unit upon receipt of payment.

The consent order also included terms regarding future communications, parking, and a mutual agreement not to seek additional legal or filing costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed a records request for board meeting minutes, photos, and videos related to a water leak and subsequent chargeback.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent corporation did not refuse to provide records without reasonable excuse, as it was unaware of one video's existence and faced technical issues delivering another.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to deliver the remaining video and provide corrected copies of improperly redacted board minutes.

No penalties or costs were awarded.

The applicant brought a motion to have his name redacted from a previously published Condominium Authority Tribunal decision.

He argued that publication could lead to hostile behaviour from a neighbour, damage his professional reputation, and negatively affect the value of his unit.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to establish that his privacy interests outweighed the strong public interest in the open court principle.

The applicant condominium owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation failed to keep adequate records by failing to deliver, delivering late, or delivering inaccurate Periodic Information Certificates (PICs) and other certificates.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction and because the issues were minor.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the timing of delivery of information certificates under s. 26.3 of the Condominium Act, 1998, and that the alleged errors in the certificates were not significant enough to warrant a hearing.

Costs of $750 were awarded to the respondent.

The parties agreed to settle a condominium dispute regarding nuisance, parking, and storage rules through 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, and requiring the owner to take reasonable steps to ensure the tenant's compliance.

The tenant agreed to pay $5,000 in costs to the corporation.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against a unit owner regarding a dog in the unit, which allegedly violated the condominium's rules.

During the proceedings, it was discovered that the named respondent owner had been deceased for nine years and the unit was occupied by a tenant who had not been properly added as an intervenor.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 4 of its Rules of Practice, directing the applicant to confirm the current owners and properly add the tenant as a party before refiling.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records, including meeting minutes and updated rules, and improperly redacted board minutes.

The Tribunal found that the corporation had provided all responsive records, that an informal town hall did not require minutes, and that the redactions to board minutes were justified under the litigation exception.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $1,000 in nominal costs due to late document submissions that increased the respondent's legal fees.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order directing the respondent unit owner to stop smoking tobacco in his unit, in contravention of the corporation's rules.

The respondent denied smoking tobacco, though he admitted to adding tobacco to his medical cannabis, for which he had an accommodation.

The Tribunal found, based on evidence from other residents and security reports, that the respondent was smoking cigarettes in his unit, creating an unreasonable nuisance.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to immediately cease smoking cigarettes in his unit.

The applicant unit owner and respondent condominium corporation resolved their dispute regarding a records request during Stage 2 mediation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order formalizing their agreement, which required the corporation to provide redacted in-camera board minutes, a utility service contract, and a list of investigated hydro companies, along with $275 in costs and compensation.

The applicant unit owner sought an order from the Condominium Authority Tribunal directing the respondent condominium corporation to provide board meeting minutes and a specific by-law, and requested a penalty for the corporation's refusal to provide them.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was not entitled to draft minutes, the corporation's nearly year-long delay in approving minutes constituted a refusal without a reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty, finding the corporation did not willfully disregard its obligations, but ordered the corporation to provide the approved minutes within a set timeframe and awarded the applicant $200 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought an order directing the condominium corporation to resolve noise issues caused by an exit door near her unit.

She alleged the door's use created unreasonable noise constituting a nuisance under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal found that while the door was not quiet, the noise was not objectively unreasonable and was consistent with normal communal living.

The Tribunal also found the corporation had taken reasonable steps to address the complaints within the constraints of the Fire Code.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding unreasonable noise from a unit occupied by the respondents.

The tenants moved out before the hearing concluded, leaving costs and compensation as the only remaining issues.

The Tribunal found that the unit owner had received proper notice and that the noise, particularly late at night, was objectively unreasonable.

The Tribunal ordered the unit owner to pay $1,331.70 in pre-application compensation, $150 for filing fees, and $5,661 in legal costs on a partial indemnity basis due to his failure to engage early in the process.

The applicant condominium corporation and the respondent landlord and tenant reached a settlement during Stage 2 mediation regarding noise and nuisance complaints.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order formalizing the agreement.

The order requires the tenant to adjust business hours, comply with noise restrictions, and follow a structured complaint resolution process, while the landlord must provide a lease summary and governing documents.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking compliance with a prior settlement agreement regarding the production of condominium records.

The parties agreed to settle the matter in Stage 3.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide the outstanding records, subject to necessary redactions, and to reimburse the applicant's $125 filing fee.

The applicant submitted a request for condominium records, specifically meeting minutes for June, July, and August 2024.

The respondent condominium corporation failed to provide the minutes until after the Tribunal hearing commenced, citing a chaotic transition to a new management provider.

The Tribunal found that the significant delay constituted a refusal without a reasonable excuse and ordered the respondent to pay a $500 penalty and $200 in costs.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal requesting condominium records.

Shortly after, the applicant sold his unit and ceased to be an owner.

The Tribunal proposed to dismiss the application because the right to examine records under the Condominium Act only applies if the request is solely related to a person's interests as an owner.

The applicant did not address this issue but requested an investigation into the corporation's record-keeping.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting it lacked authority to conduct the requested investigation.