Condominium Authority Tribunal

The applicant requested 11 condominium records from the respondent corporation.

During the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution mediation stage, the parties agreed to settle the records dispute.

The Tribunal issued a consent order formalizing the settlement, which required the corporation to produce certain outstanding records, including contracts for recently hired building staff and specific financial records, within specified timeframes.

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.

The respondent condominium owners brought a motion to adjourn the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) proceedings pending the resolution of a parallel human rights application filed with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The underlying dispute involved the condominium corporation's enforcement of pet rules against the respondent's service dog.

The CAT applied the factors for granting an adjournment and found that the CAT proceeding was already underway, the CAT had jurisdiction to consider Human Rights Code issues in the context of rule enforcement, and the condominium corporation would be prejudiced by the delay.

The motion for an adjournment was dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to enforce its pet rule and permanently remove the respondent's dog, alleging the dog's barking constituted a nuisance.

The respondent argued the enforcement was unreasonable, the complaints were unfounded, and the dog was an emotional support animal.

The Tribunal found that the condominium corporation failed to act reasonably, as it did not independently verify the noise complaints, relied solely on the subjective experiences of two neighbours, and inconsistently applied its definition of a nuisance.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

The applicant, a unit owner, sought access to various condominium records, alleging that the board meeting minutes provided were inadequate and that the respondent corporation refused to provide other records without a reasonable excuse.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the minutes contained sufficient detail to meet the statutory requirement for adequate records and that the corporation had not withheld existing records.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay $2,000 in costs due to unreasonable conduct, including seeking to adjudicate the existence of a record they knew did not exist.

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

The Tribunal issued a consent order dismissing the application and ordering the respondent condominium corporation to reimburse the applicant $2,920.30 for the costs of the proceeding.

The applicant, a unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation breached its maintenance obligations under the Condominium Act, 1998 due to chronic elevator failures.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it lacks jurisdiction over repair and maintenance disputes under sections 89-92 of the Act.

As the applicant did not respond to the Notice, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 19.1(c) of its Rules of Practice.

The applicant sought access to various condominium records, including board meeting minutes and an engineering consultant's report related to shared hydro facilities and litigation.

The parties reached a settlement through the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent corporation to provide the requested records, subject to specific redactions for solicitor-client privilege and unrelated exempt information, upon the applicant's payment of $288.15 for the non-core records.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a compliance notice incorrectly issued to his unit for alleged garbage disposal violations.

During mediation, the respondent condominium corporation acknowledged the error, confirmed no charges were applied, issued an apology, and agreed to reimburse the tribunal fees.

The applicant sought to proceed to a hearing to obtain an order requiring the respondent to review its enforcement procedures.

The Tribunal dismissed the case, finding that the specific issues giving rise to the dispute had been resolved and that the remaining issue regarding board governance and procedural fairness fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant condominium owner challenged a chargeback imposed by the respondent condominium corporation for downspout and drainage work.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacks jurisdiction over disputes related to repairs and maintenance under sections 89 to 92 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal confirmed that it only has jurisdiction over chargebacks when the underlying issue falls within its statutory mandate.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a condominium owner, filed an application against the condominium corporation alleging it failed to enforce its rules regarding unreasonable noise from the unit above.

The applicant claimed that construction and flooring impact noise constituted a substantial nuisance and sought orders for acoustic testing and rule enforcement.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the noise from the unit above was unreasonable or violated the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal also found that the condominium corporation had taken reasonable steps to investigate the complaints, including conducting patrols and in-suite inspections.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking video recordings and transcripts of board meeting minutes.

The tribunal member brought a motion to dismiss the case at the mediation stage under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The tribunal found that the requested records were not prescribed by the Condominium Act, belonged to a contracted note-taking service, and that the respondent had already provided the approved minutes.

The application was dismissed as the issues were deemed so minor that it would be unfair to require the respondent to proceed.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal of their intention to withdraw the case, to which the respondent and intervenor agreed.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal without prejudice, ordered the parties to bear their own costs, and closed the case.

The applicant alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding visitor parking rules.

The applicant claimed the corporation failed to provide required written notice to owners, proposed a new rule that contradicted the settlement, and delayed reimbursing owners for cancelled parking tickets.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation's notice satisfied the settlement terms and the proposed rule did not contravene the agreement.

While the reimbursements were delayed, the Tribunal found this breach to be minor and moot.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the corporation's replacement of the garage doors caused unreasonable noise and vibration in their unit.

The corporation argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the issue related to repair and maintenance rather than a prohibited activity.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the noise was not caused by an activity under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, nor did the corporation's declaration regarding nuisance apply to the corporation itself.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that vibration and noise from heat pumps in a neighbouring unit substantially interfered with her quiet enjoyment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, as repair and maintenance issues fall outside its jurisdiction.

However, the Tribunal allowed the case to proceed, finding it premature to dismiss because the heat pumps might be owned by individual unit owners rather than being common elements.

The applicant was ordered to clarify the correct parties within 14 days.

The applicant condominium owner challenged a chargeback of $892.70 levied by the respondent condominium corporation for legal fees and cleaning costs related to his guest's parking and nuisance violations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's guest had breached the corporation's rules by painting a vehicle in a visitor parking spot and causing disturbances.

The Tribunal held that the corporation acted reasonably in enforcing its governing documents and was entitled to the chargeback under its indemnification provisions.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the corporation.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed a nuisance application against the condominium corporation, alleging that a faulty ventilation system was causing odour and smoke in their unit.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that its jurisdiction over nuisances under the Condominium Act requires an activity by a person, not a building condition.

The Tribunal found it lacked legal authority to hear the dispute, as the issue related to the corporation's repair obligations rather than a prescribed nuisance.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking various condominium corporation records.

The parties reached a settlement during the Stage 3 online dispute resolution process.

The Tribunal issued a consent order formalizing the agreement, which required the respondent to provide estimates for the cost of producing specific records and, upon payment, to provide the selected records subject to permitted redactions under the Condominium Act.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a disputed chargeback for a leak, framing it as a records dispute about the accuracy of the owner ledger.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application under Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over maintenance and repair chargebacks.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the core issue was the validity of the chargeback rather than a records dispute, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.