Condominium Authority Tribunal

The applicant condominium corporation, represented by one of its three directors, filed an application against the other two directors regarding a governance dispute.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application due to concerns over whether a quorum of the board had authorized the application and whether the subject matter fell within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

After receiving conflicting responses from the opposing board members, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction over internal governance disputes and could not determine who had the authority to act on behalf of the corporation.

The applicant submitted a request for condominium records relating to a plumbing chargeback.

The parties agreed to settle the issues by way of a consent order.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested records, including board materials, a plumber's report, and board minutes, to the applicant at no cost.

No penalty or costs were awarded.

The applicant filed an application regarding a chargeback issued by the condominium corporation for water damage allegedly caused by the applicant's heating/cooling system.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, as the issue related to repairs and maintenance under sections 89 to 92 of the Condominium Act, 1998, which fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant's response relied on generative AI and cited non-existent cases.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction over the repairs and maintenance chargeback.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking information from the condominium corporation's insurance company regarding a claim.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the applicant was requesting information rather than a record the corporation is required to maintain under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, reiterating that its jurisdiction relates to records disputes, not requests for information or evaluations of corporate performance.

The applicant condominium owner sought various records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent delayed in responding to the requests and refused to provide certain records, citing that they were drafts, non-existent, or related to specific owners.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's delay in responding constituted a refusal without reasonable excuse.

While the applicant was not entitled to draft documents, non-existent records, or broad communications deemed a 'fishing expedition', he was entitled to the Keller Engineering contract and Notices of Change.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $500 penalty for the delay and refusal, plus $200 in costs.

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

The applicant failed to move the case to the tribunal decision stage within the required 15-day period.

As a result, the tribunal ordered the case closed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal disputing an $811.00 chargeback for a smoke detector repair.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the dispute related to repairs and maintenance, which falls outside its jurisdiction.

As the applicant failed to identify a relevant provision in the corporation's governing documents that would grant jurisdiction over the indemnification issue, the application was dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application alleging the respondents failed to comply with parking, pet, and nuisance provisions in the governing documents.

Before a final decision was rendered, the applicant informed the Tribunal that the issues had been resolved and requested to withdraw the case on a without costs basis.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed under Rule 43.1 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding the inclusion of owners' names in the condominium board's meeting minutes.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on its own motion at the intake stage under section 1.41(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal found the application was about minor issues, had no reasonable prospect of success, and was filed for an improper purpose, noting this was the applicant's tenth application and raised issues already addressed in prior decisions.

The applicant filed an application seeking an order that the respondent condominium corporation comply with a prior settlement agreement.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1 of its Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any specific terms of the settlement agreement that were violated and that the application was filed beyond the six-month timeframe permitted by the agreement.

The applicant, a condominium owner previously restricted from filing new applications without permission, sought leave from the Tribunal to file a new application regarding a records request.

The respondent condominium corporation opposed the motion, arguing the application was filed beyond the 60-day limitation period after the board's response.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the records request was deemed abandoned under s. 13.10(b) of O. Reg 48/01, and dismissed the motion.

The applicant brought a case to the Condominium Authority Tribunal to clarify the use of his exclusive-use parking spaces at the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties agreed to settle the matter during the mediation stage.

The Tribunal issued a consent order permitting the applicant to park his vehicle in his designated space, subject to specific size, safety, and insurance conditions, and ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The applicant filed a case regarding the adequacy and contents of a Periodic Information Certificate (PIC) provided by the respondent condominium corporation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that while it has jurisdiction over records-related disputes under section 55 of the Condominium Act, it lacks jurisdiction to decide disputes about the accuracy and content of PICs under section 26.3.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction and cautioned the applicant against improper use of the Tribunal.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking email correspondence related to a letter sent by the respondent corporation.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as the requested emails related to contemplated litigation, given the applicant's repeated threats to sue the corporation for libel and slander over the letter.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was clearly contemplating litigation at the time of the records request and sought the emails to support his claims.

As records related to contemplated litigation are exempt from examination under s. 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998, the Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19.1(b) for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a condominium owner, challenged the validity and enforcement of the condominium corporation's visitor parking rules, as well as chargebacks levied against her for alleged violations.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the visitor parking rules valid but determined that several chargebacks issued prior to the enactment of a specific rule, or without proper basis, were invalid.

The Tribunal ordered the condominium corporation to reimburse the applicant $1,880.99 for the invalid chargebacks and dismissed the applicant's harassment claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant unit owner sought an order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to produce an insurance denial letter related to a flood incident, along with a penalty and costs.

The corporation maintained that the requested record did not exist and was not in its control, as its insurance broker and insurer declined to provide a formal denial letter.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation had a reasonable excuse for not providing the record because it did not possess it.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent, another unit owner and board member, was harassing her through derogatory statements, unsolicited emails, and yelling.

The applicant argued this conduct constituted a nuisance under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19 of its Rules of Practice, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear disputes primarily about harassment or governance issues between board members, as the alleged conduct did not meet the legal threshold for a nuisance under the Act or the corporation's rules.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against the respondent unit owner for causing noise nuisances and harassing other residents, contrary to s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation's rules.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent engaged in persistent unreasonable noise and harassment, including yelling profanities and threats in the common elements, even after signing a peace bond.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the Act and rules, and awarded the applicant $1,636.24 in damages and $10,150 in costs.

The applicant brought a case to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent violated condominium rules regarding pets and noise.

The parties reached a consent order during Stage 2 Mediation.

The tribunal ordered the condominium corporation to investigate any future complaints from the applicant regarding the respondent and to consider enforcement steps if necessary.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to combine two separate applications filed by the applicant: one regarding a nuisance dispute and another regarding a records dispute.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no practical benefit to combining the matters as they involved different facts and issues with no apparent connection.