Condominium Authority Tribunal

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, 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 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 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 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 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 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.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested various records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The corporation delayed providing the Reserve Fund Study because it was in draft form, and charged fees for redacting invoices, bank statements, and a Performance Audit Tracking Summary.

The Tribunal found that the corporation was not required to provide the draft Reserve Fund Study and had provided the finalized version appropriately.

The Tribunal also found that the corporation's estimated fees for redacting the non-core records, based on a $30 hourly rate, were reasonable.

No costs were awarded to either party.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw the case, and the respondent agreed.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal with prejudice, ordered the parties to bear their own costs, and closed the case.

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 agreed.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal with prejudice, ordered the parties to bear their own costs, and closed the case.

The applicant alleged she was subject to unreasonable noise.

The respondent condominium corporation filed redacted security reports that were difficult to understand.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to refile the reports with only sensitive personal information redacted, subject to a confidentiality order restricting their use to the hearing.

The applicant filed two separate applications with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding requests for records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties consented to joining the two cases to be heard by the same Tribunal Member.

The Tribunal ordered that the earlier records request be added to the later case file and closed the earlier case file, with only the outstanding issues carrying forward for determination.

The intervenor condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's nuisance claim regarding a neighbour's front porch light.

The intervenor argued the application was frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of an improper purpose and concluding that the factual dispute regarding the light nuisance should not be prejudged before a final hearing.

Costs of the motion were deferred to the conclusion of the case.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

Prior to a decision, the applicant informed the Tribunal that the parties had resolved the issues in dispute and requested to withdraw the case.

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

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against the unit owners and their tenant regarding unreasonable noise.

The tenant did not participate in the hearing.

The participating parties agreed that the tenant caused unreasonable noise and that the owners had commenced eviction proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to cease creating unreasonable noise and ordered the unit owners to pay $2,000 in costs to the condominium corporation.

The applicant unit owner brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking access to requested condominium records, a determination that provided records were inadequate, and a penalty against the respondent corporation.

The Tribunal found that the 18 records already provided were adequate, noting that redactions and the absence of ancillary accounting documents did not render them deficient.

The Tribunal held that the respondent had a reasonable excuse for refusing the remaining six requests, as they were either too vague or constituted an improper fishing expedition.

The respondent was ordered to reimburse the applicant's $200 tribunal fee due to its initial delay, but the applicant was ordered to pay $1,000 in legal costs for unreasonable conduct during the hearing.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent's tenants were creating a nuisance through noise, smoke, and odour.

After the hearing commenced, the applicant requested to withdraw the case.

The respondent did not object to the withdrawal but sought costs, alleging bad faith conduct by the applicant and the condominium corporation.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal and denied the costs request, finding no evidence of bad faith or actual costs incurred.

The applicant filed a motion to reopen a Condominium Authority Tribunal case that had closed automatically due to inactivity, and sought to add issues regarding common elements and the appointment of an arbitrator.

The Tribunal applied the Frey v. MacDonald factors and found that the applicant provided no reasons to reopen the original records case.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction over the newly raised issues under sections 98 and 132 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The motion to reopen the case was dismissed.

The applicant, a unit owner and director of the respondent condominium corporation, requested various corporate records.

The respondent refused, arguing the applicant requested them in his capacity as a director and for an improper purpose related to board infighting.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was entitled to certain core records, the majority of the requests were made for an improper purpose to challenge board governance and discredit fellow board members.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the core records but declined to impose a penalty on the respondent.

However, because the respondent failed to formally respond to the initial request as required by the regulations, it was ordered to reimburse the applicant's Tribunal fees.