CITATION: 2855531 Ontario Inc v. Muskoka Condominium Corporation No. 42, 2026 ONSC 1018
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 664/25 and 773/25
DATE: 20260219
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: 2855531 Ontario Inc., Appellant/Applicant
AND:
Muskoka condominium corporation No. 42, Respondent
BEFORE: Leitch, Sachs and Brownstone JJ.
COUNSEL: Mitchell Wine, for the Appellant/Applicant
Warren A. Mouck and Miranda Dell’Anna, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto by videoconference: February 17, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
H. Sachs J.
[1] This proceeding concerns a three-unit condominium development in Muskoka. 2855531 Ontario Inc. (“285”) brings an appeal and an application to judicially review the decision of the Condominium Authority Tribunal (the “CAT”) dated July 30, 2025 (the “Decision”). In the Decision the CAT found that the occupants of the unit owned by 285 had failed to comply with the parking rules of Muskoka Condominium Corporation No. 42 (the “Condominium”) and that the occupants’ dog, Rambo, had to be removed from the Condominium’s property as he was there in violation of the Condominium’s no pet rule. The CAT also ordered 285 to pay the Condominium’s costs, fixed in the amount of $6700.00.
[2] An appeal lies to the Divisional Court from the decisions of the CAT on a question of law alone. There is no issue that the applicable standard of review to questions of law is correctness. 285 also challenges the rationality of the CAT’s findings that do not raise an extricable error of law by way of their application for judicial review. It is agreed that the applicable standard of review for that application is reasonableness.
[3] 285 made the following arguments:
The CAT erred in law by misapprehending the facts in relation to Rambo. In the alternative it submits that the CAT’s conclusions with respect to Rambo were unreasonable.
The CAT should have applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel to ensure that Rambo could remain in the property.
The CAT erred in law by misapprehending the facts in relation to the alleged violation of the parking rules. In the alternative it submits that the CAT’s conclusions on this issue were unreasonable.
The no pet rule and the parking rules were unreasonable.
The Condominium failed to act in good faith towards 285.
The Condominium’s actions towards 285 were oppressive.
[4] If the appeal or judicial review application is allowed 285 requests that the costs order made against it by the CAT be reversed.
The CAT’s findings with respect to Rambo disclose no error of law and were reasonable
[5] 285 argues that there was no factual basis for the conclusions reached by the CAT with respect to Rambo. According to 285, the evidence discloses that having Rambo stay on the property was a condition of its purchase of the property. Therefore, it insisted that there be an exception to the Condominium’s no pets rule. In support of its request for this exception it provided the Condominium with a letter certifying that Rambo was a service dog. At no time did they assert that Rambo was a service dog for one of the occupants. On the basis of the letter provided, the Condominium provided 285 with a document (the “Proposal”) that allowed Rambo to remain on the property as long as the other conditions were complied with. The Proposal did not state that Rambo had to be one of the occupant’s service dog. It only stated that Rambo had to be a certified service dog. Since the Condominium drafted the Proposal, if there is an ambiguity in the Proposal, that ambiguity should be interpreted against the Condominium.
[6] While this may be 285’s view of the evidence, this was not the CAT’s view of the evidence. The CAT found that on February 23, 2023, 285 provided the Condominium with a letter certifying that Rambo was a service dog that was used at a treatment facility owned by the occupants of 285’s unit. After receiving that letter, on March 21, 2023, the Condominium provided 285 with the Proposal, which listed 8 conditions. The first condition read as follows:
Only your current dog Rambo, who is a certified service dog is covered by this exemption, subject to the provision of the certification document.
[7] The CAT then found that at a meeting on June 27, 2023, the occupants of the two other units in the Condominium made it clear to the occupants of 285’s unit that Rambo could only live in their unit as an accommodation pursuant to the Human Rights Code. This required satisfying them that Rambo was a support animal for one of the occupants in 285’s unit.
[8] The CAT found as a fact that no such documentation was provided and that in the absence of such documentation the Condominium was entitled to rely on and enforce its no pets rule.
[9] The CAT’s view of the issue before it is supported by the fact that Ms. Ricci, one of the occupants of 285’s unit, testified that she used Rambo as her emotional support dog because she had PTSD. She also testified that she had a letter that confirmed that she needed an emotional support dog. She said that she did not know where that letter was as it was “probably 20 years old”. Further the Proposal as drafted specifically states that the reason for the Proposal is that “Prospective Buyers for Unit #3 have requested that the Board of Directors provide written approval to allow them to bring their service dog to the condo.” (emphasis added).
[10] This evidence provides an evidentiary basis for the CAT’s view that the exemption that was granted to the Condominium’s no pets rule was only to apply if the Condominium was satisfied through documentation that Rambo was Ms. Ricci’s service dog. Since that documentation was not provided the exemption did not apply.
[11] Given this there is no basis for an assertion that the CAT misapprehended the evidence or that its conclusions on this issue were unreasonable.
[12] 285 also argued before us that the Condominium is equitably estopped from evicting Rambo because it made a representation that Rambo could stay there, which the occupants of 285 relied upon to their detriment. I reject this argument. First, it was not raised before the CAT and second the CAT did not accept that the Condominium made a representation with respect to Rambo that changed once 285’s occupants moved into the unit. At all times the Condominium’s position was that the exemption to its no pets rule would apply once it was satisfied through documentation that Rambo was Ms. Ricci’s service dog.
[13] 285 submitted that the no pets rule was an unreasonable rule. As the CAT decision makes clear, this submission was not made before it. It cannot be raised for the first time before us. To determine the issue requires a factual record that we do not have. Further, the legislature has given exclusive jurisdiction over condominium pet disputes to the CAT. Before reaching a conclusion on the reasonableness of a no pets rule for a specific condominium the CAT should be given the opportunity to express its view on the issue after hearing the necessary evidence and submissions. This allows this court to have the benefit of the views of the expert tribunal that the legislature has chosen to deal with the issue.
[14] The same reasoning applies to the allegation that the Condominium failed to act in good faith with respect to the enforcement of its no pets rule. This allegation was no made before the CAT and should not be entertained by us. Further, to the extent that the allegation of lack of good faith depends on an argument that the Condominium changed its position with respect to Rambo, the CAT did not accept that the Condominium had changed its position. Therefore, that aspect of the lack of good faith submission cannot be sustained.
The CAT’s findings with respect to the parking issue disclose no error of law and were reasonable
[15] In the Decision the CAT found that the Condominium’s Declaration gave each unit exclusive use of one parking spot. The Condominium Rules provided that owners and residents were responsible for ensuring that the spots allocated to the other units not be used by any of their guests, delivery people, or any other people having business with them for “even a moment.” After hearing evidence, the CAT found “that there are numerous vehicles associated with the Occupants [of 285’s unit] and their visitors and guests, parked on the property, in parking spots designated to other units. This is contrary to the parking rules of [the Condominium].”
[16] There was ample evidence to support the findings of the CAT on this issue. The CAT’s conclusions disclose no error of law and are reasonable.
[17] The CAT also referred to the fact that in closing submissions 285 advanced an argument that the Condominium’s parking rules were unreasonable. The CAT refused to entertain the argument as it “was not provided with any evidence regarding the reasonableness of the [parking rule]”. 285 has raised the same argument before this court. This argument should not be entertained before this court for the same reasons that the CAT refused to deal with it. There is no evidentiary record regarding the issue to consider.
[18] 285 also submitted that the Condominium failed to act in good faith when it came to the parking issue. This argument was not made before the CAT and should not be advanced for the first time on appeal or judicial review.
The other issues should be dismissed as they were not advanced before the CAT
[19] 285 submitted that the Condominium did not comply with the Condominium Act and that its conduct was oppressive. Neither of these arguments were made before the CAT. Further the parties have agreed to a timetable to litigate the oppression issue in Superior Court, which is the appropriate forum to address the issue.
Conclusion
[20] For these reasons the appeal and the application for judicial review are dismissed. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, 285 shall pay the Condominium its costs of the proceeding, fixed in the amount of $10,000, all inclusive.
Sachs J.
I agree _______________________________
Leitch J.
I agree _______________________________
Brownstone J.
Date: February 19, 2026