Condominium Authority Tribunal

The applicant filed two concurrent applications regarding two enforcement letters and associated chargebacks.

The first application was resolved by a Consent Order.

The respondent moved to dismiss the second application, arguing the Consent Order resolved all costs related to the enforcement actions.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that allowing the second case to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant condominium owner applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal to dispute a $2,688.05 chargeback for legal fees incurred by the condominium corporation in defending a human rights complaint filed by the owner's former tenant.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it only has jurisdiction over indemnification disputes that relate to nuisance, annoyance, or disruption, which did not apply to the human rights complaint chargeback.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against the respondent owner for breaching rules regarding noise and smoking.

The respondent did not participate in the written hearing.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that the respondent caused unreasonable noise and smoked in his unit and on the common elements, creating a nuisance.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the rules and pay $3,400 in costs, including legal fees and compliance costs.

The applicants and the respondent condominium corporation agreed to settle their dispute regarding visitor parking and parking space assignments during Stage 2 mediation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order rescinding the policy that imposed monthly fees for visitor parking spaces, restoring seven visitor parking spots on a first-come, first-served basis, and temporarily assigning a specific parking spot to one of the applicants' sons.

The applicant unit owner requested records from the respondent condominium corporation regarding a special assessment for underground parking garage repairs.

The corporation failed to provide the revised special assessment and a written opinion from a unit owner.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation refused to provide the revised special assessment without a reasonable excuse and ordered its production along with a $200 penalty.

The Tribunal held that the unit owner's written opinion was not a record the corporation was required to maintain under the Condominium Act.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 2 mediation.

After reaching an impasse, the applicant was given the opportunity to move the matter to Stage 3 but failed to pay the required fee within 15 days.

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

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's case, arguing that the applicant failed to follow the corporation's established procedures and proper protocol when requesting records.

The applicant contended that the request was provided to a board member using the correct form.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion as premature, finding it unclear whether the form was provided incorrectly and noting that determining the motion on its merits would require more formal testimony and evidence.

The case was ordered to proceed to the Negotiation stage.

The applicants submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a chargeback from the condominium corporation for legal and security costs related to their tenant's behaviour.

The Tribunal found that the corporation's enforcement letters framed the tenant's activities as creating a safety risk under subsection 117(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Because the chargeback could not be reasonably separated from these safety issues, the dispute fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction pursuant to subsection 1(3) of Ontario Regulation 179/17.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged that the respondent condominium corporation failed to adequately redact his name and information about prior Tribunal cases from board meeting minutes shared with owners, violating s. 55(4)(c) of the Condominium Act.

He also challenged the legality and accuracy of an updated Periodic Information Certificate (PIC) issued by the corporation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the disclosure of legal disputes in minutes did not violate the Act and that issues regarding the timing of PICs fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the applicant for pursuing the application for an improper purpose, noting he had been previously warned about misusing Tribunal resources.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal to dispute the enforcement of a rule regarding tenants leaving shoes outside their unit.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the dispute did not relate to provisions regarding pets, animals, vehicles, parking, storage, or nuisances as required by Ontario Regulation 179/17.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice, and the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation failed to enforce its parking rules by allowing owners and visitors to park on the roadway.

The respondent argued that its board had discretion to determine how to enforce the rules and had acted reasonably.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had acted reasonably and not capriciously in its enforcement practices, which included issuing reminders and notices rather than hiring private parking enforcement.

The application was dismissed, though the Tribunal ordered the respondent to issue a notice to all owners reminding them of the parking rules and enforcement steps.

No costs or damages were awarded.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent breached a previous settlement agreement.

During the hearing, the parties agreed to settle the issues on consent.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to pay the applicant $168.28 in costs.

The applicant unit owner sought various condominium records from the respondent corporation, alleging a refusal to provide them without reasonable excuse.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation failed to provide an accurate list of owners and mortgagees and ordered it to do so, along with notices of leases and by-laws once ratified.

The Tribunal upheld the corporation's redactions of proxies and bank statements as compliant with the Condominium Act.

The corporation was ordered to pay a $1,000 penalty for its refusal to provide the owners list, $200 in costs, and its directors were ordered to retake mandatory training.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 3.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that he was withdrawing his case.

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

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested board meeting minutes from the respondent condominium corporation.

The records were provided after a minor delay caused by the property manager's absence and email delivery issues.

The applicant sought a $2,000 penalty, arguing the delay and the withholding of unapproved draft minutes constituted a refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the minor delay did not amount to a refusal and that draft minutes are not records of the corporation until approved.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent condominium corporation was harassing her by enforcing a rule limiting exterior security cameras.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not identify a governing document provision restricting the activity, and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over oppression remedies under s. 135 of the Condominium Act.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the condominium corporation unlawfully demanded tenant information, improperly enforced a restrictive definition of 'family', and placed unjustified liens for legal fees.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the issues did not fall within its records jurisdiction under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked the legal authority to decide the dispute and dismissed the application.

The applicant brought a case before the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a records request.

During Stage 2 mediation, the parties agreed to settle the dispute.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to provide specific records, including service provider changes and board meeting minutes, and to pay $75 for Tribunal fees.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested several records from the respondent condominium corporation, including an incident report, rental agreements, and AGM materials.

The respondent refused the incident report citing the contemplated litigation exemption and provided fee estimates for redacting the AGM materials.

The Tribunal found that the incident report did not fall under the litigation exemption and ordered its production.

The Tribunal also found the proposed redaction fees excessive, reducing the hourly rate and estimated hours.

The applicant's request for a penalty was dismissed, but she was awarded $200 in costs for filing fees.

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.