Patricia McQuaid

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, 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 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 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 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, 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 applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding unreasonable odours emanating from the respondent owner's unit due to hoarding and garbage accumulation.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's activities constituted a nuisance under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to clean the unit within 30 days, failing which the corporation may enter and hire a third-party cleaner at the respondent's expense.

The corporation was also awarded $750 in compensation and $1,200 in costs.

The applicant filed an application disputing an $800 chargeback issued by the respondent condominium corporation after a non-resident used the applicant's key fob.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the dispute concerned building access and security rules rather than parking or storage.

The applicant argued the fob also granted access to parking, bringing it within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding the rules were in substance about building security, which falls outside its statutory jurisdiction under O. Reg. 179/17.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant unit owner applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding noise complaints from the unit above.

The agreement required the corporation to hire a sound engineer and implement reasonable recommendations for common element noise issues.

The Tribunal found that the corporation complied with the agreement, as the engineer's report found the floor assembly sufficient and only recommended the upstairs neighbour install area rugs, which the corporation had no authority to enforce.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium owner applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the ongoing operation of the building's mechanical systems caused unreasonable noise and vibration, constituting a nuisance under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the regular operation of a building's mechanical systems is a condition of the property, not an 'activity' carried on by a person within the meaning of s. 117(2).

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.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order for the permanent removal of the respondent's dog, alleging the respondent allowed the dog to defecate on her balcony and washed the waste onto the balcony below, creating a nuisance.

The respondent failed to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent violated the condominium's rules regarding pets and nuisance.

The Tribunal ordered the permanent removal of the dog within 30 days and awarded $200 in costs for the filing fee, but declined to award the requested legal costs on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for records related to a garage membrane project and other expenditures.

The respondent condominium corporation provided some records late and argued the applicant was on a fishing expedition.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not on a fishing expedition but concluded the respondent had provided all the records it was required to keep.

The applicant was awarded $200 in Tribunal fees due to the respondent's delay in providing the initial records.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought various records from the respondent condominium corporation, including AGM video recordings, an LED lighting rebate application, and security video footage of an altercation with the property manager.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the requested records either did not exist, were not records of the corporation, or had already been provided.

Consequently, there was no refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse.

However, because some records from an earlier request were only provided during mediation, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $75 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought an order directing the condominium corporation to resolve noise issues caused by an exit door near her unit.

She alleged the door's use created unreasonable noise constituting a nuisance under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal found that while the door was not quiet, the noise was not objectively unreasonable and was consistent with normal communal living.

The Tribunal also found the corporation had taken reasonable steps to address the complaints within the constraints of the Fire Code.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application regarding the respondent condominium corporation's decision to cut off power to an electrical outlet at his designated parking spot, which he used to charge his hybrid vehicle.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the dispute did not fall within its jurisdiction under s. 1(1)(d) of O. Reg. 179/17, as there were no provisions in the corporation's governing documents that specifically governed automobiles or parking in relation to the electrical outlets.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent unit owner above him was creating unreasonable noise contrary to s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, and sought an order for the condominium corporation to repair the subfloor.

The Tribunal found that the noises were creaking sounds caused by normal walking and the building's construction, not by any unreasonable activity.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs to the condominium corporation.

The applicant, a commercial unit owner, challenged the validity of a new parking rule enacted by the condominium corporation that prohibited the parking of utility trailers and limited owners to two parking spaces in front of their units.

The applicant argued the rule was unreasonable and inconsistent with the declaration, which provided for 'first come, first served' parking.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the board followed the required statutory process for enacting the rule and that the rule was a reasonable response to complaints about parking spaces being used for storage.

The Tribunal concluded the rule was valid and consistent with the declaration, dismissing the application without costs.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The parties subsequently reached a private and confidential settlement agreement that resolved the issues in dispute.

Pursuant to Rule 43.1(b) of the CAT's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal ordered the case closed and directed that all documents and messages shared during the negotiation and mediation stages remain private and confidential.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged that the respondents, owners of the unit below, permitted activities causing unreasonable cooking odours in his unit, contrary to s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant provided little evidence to substantiate the claim, while the respondents provided evidence of HVAC inspections showing proper ventilation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that the odours were unreasonable or constituted a nuisance.

The application was dismissed without costs.