Patricia McQuaid

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to cease scattering garlic, bleach, eggs, and other substances around her unit and common elements.

The respondent, who claimed the substances protected her from witchcraft, did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the persistent and unreasonable odours caused by the respondent's actions constituted a nuisance under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent was ordered to cease the activity and pay $1,700 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant condominium owner applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation contravened a settlement agreement regarding the provision of various condominium records.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had failed to comply with several terms of the agreement, including failing to provide updated records, a reconciliation of costs, and an impression of the corporate seal.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the outstanding records and directed the current board members to complete mandatory director training due to their lack of understanding of their statutory obligations.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

The applicant, a unit owner, submitted a records request for the audio-visual recording of the condominium corporation's 2023 virtual annual general meeting.

The respondent corporation denied the request, stating it did not possess the recording, though its management company later obtained a copy from the platform provider.

The Tribunal found that the recording was not a record of the corporation under the Condominium Act, as it was not created at the corporation's behest.

The application was dismissed, and no penalty or costs were awarded, though the applicant was granted a two-hour window to view the recording at the management office.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a records request for board meeting minutes and notices regarding parcel disposal.

The respondent condominium corporation failed to provide the mandatory Board Response form and delivered the minutes late, believing that posting them on the building website was sufficient.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent misunderstood its obligations, its actions did not amount to a refusal without reasonable excuse, and thus no penalty was awarded.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent's board of directors to retake mandatory director training and awarded the applicant $200 in costs for Tribunal fees.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's case regarding garage door noise, the respondent condominium corporations sought partial indemnity costs of $1,767.32.

The respondents argued the applicant's conduct was unreasonable and for an improper purpose, noting this was her second application on a similar issue.

The Tribunal found the applicant's reliance on recent case law was not unreasonable and declined to award costs, dismissing the request.

The applicant condominium owner filed a case alleging that noise and vibration from the operation of the respondents' garage doors constituted an unreasonable nuisance under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent condominium corporations brought a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of res judicata and lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal rejected the res judicata argument, finding the current complaint related to a newly installed garage door mechanism rather than a broken grate addressed in a previous case.

However, the Tribunal granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that noise resulting from the regular and ordinary use of common elements does not constitute an 'activity' within the meaning of section 117(2) of the Act, and the relevant declaration provision applied to owners rather than the corporation.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement by failing to provide required records on time and by disclosing confidential settlement details in a meeting package.

The Tribunal found that the corporation breached the agreement by providing a tax record late and by disclosing the settlement payment amount to other owners.

The Tribunal cautioned the corporation regarding confidentiality but declined to order a penalty or formal apology.

The corporation was ordered to reimburse the applicant's $125 filing fee.

The applicant, a unit owner, submitted a request for core and non-core records to the respondent condominium corporation.

The previous board denied the request without explanation and subsequently resigned.

A new board, which included the applicant, was elected and agreed to provide the outstanding records.

The parties reached a consent order wherein the respondent agreed to reimburse the applicant's filing fees and out-of-pocket expenses, and the applicant agreed not to seek a penalty for the previous board's noncompliance.

The applicant condominium owner sought an order requiring her upstairs neighbour to cease creating unreasonable noise, primarily from children playing and heavy walking.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient objective evidence that the noise was unreasonable or amounted to a nuisance under s. 117(2)(a) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal characterized the sounds as those of everyday living in a household with young children, noting that condominium living requires a degree of tolerance for moderate noise.

The respondent unit owner brought a motion to stay the condominium corporation's Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) application to enforce its pet and noise rules, arguing that she had previously commenced a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) application seeking accommodation for her two dogs as service animals.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to stay, finding that the CAT has jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code to the extent it arises in the context of rule enforcement, the CAT proceeding was more advanced, and the respondent would not suffer appreciable prejudice by having the core issue of the dogs determined by the CAT.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application disputing chargebacks levied by the respondent condominium corporation for improper garbage and recycling disposal.

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

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that disputes over garbage disposal rules do not fall within the prescribed disputes over which the Tribunal has authority under O. Reg. 179/17.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a case against a unit owner and her tenant regarding noise and pet rule violations.

The tenant vacated the unit and did not participate in the proceeding.

The applicant and the unit owner agreed to resolve the dispute by consent.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the owner to comply with the governing documents, pay clean-up and legal costs in monthly installments, and prohibiting the former tenant from returning to the unit.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for core and non-core records to the respondent condominium corporation.

The applicant alleged that the respondent failed to provide the records within the prescribed time, provided inadequate records, and sought a penalty and costs.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent met the prescribed timelines and provided adequate records for most requests, including contracts, notices of change, and proxy forms.

However, the Tribunal found that the record of leased units provided under section 83 of the Condominium Act was inadequate and ordered the respondent to provide a proper list.

The Tribunal found no refusal to provide records without reasonable excuse, declined to order a penalty, and ordered that no costs were payable by either party.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against a unit owner for creating excessive noise by playing loud music, contrary to section 117(2) of the Condominium Act and the corporation's governing documents.

The Tribunal found that the frequent playing of loud music constituted an annoyance and a breach of the rules, despite the respondent's assertion that he was practicing DJ sets before 10 pm.

The respondent was ordered to comply with the noise rules and to pay $1,135.09 in pre-hearing enforcement costs, plus $4,200 in Tribunal costs.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The parties subsequently resolved the issues in dispute and the applicant requested to withdraw the case.

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

The applicants filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

After the case proceeded to Stage 3, the applicants failed to respond to messages or provide evidence and submissions.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, to which the applicants also did not respond.

The Tribunal found the case had been abandoned and ordered it dismissed pursuant to Rule 43.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application alleging that the respondent owner was violating the declaration and rules by allowing clients of her home-based massage therapy business to park in designated visitor parking spaces.

The Tribunal found that the governing documents did not define 'visitor' and that paying business clients reasonably fell within the commonly understood meaning of the term.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the respondent's clients were violating rules against parking on the common elements roadways.

The application was dismissed.

A condominium unit owner filed applications with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding requests for historical management contracts, tax forms, and the corporation's minute book.

The Tribunal found that the condominium corporation had not refused to provide the records without a reasonable excuse, as the requested documents either did not exist, were not yet created, or were offered for examination.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to provide access to the minute book for a reasonable fee, reimbursed the owner for an unjustified fee charged for paper contracts, and awarded the owner partial costs for Tribunal fees.

The applicant, a condominium owner, filed a noise complaint against the respondent, who resides in the unit above her.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's activities, including dropping items and walking with hard-soled shoes, created unreasonable noise that interfered with her quiet enjoyment, particularly during sleeping hours.

The respondent attributed the noise to building deficiencies and her own physical unsteadiness resulting from an injury.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while daytime noises were not unreasonable given the building's sound transmission issues, the noises occurring after 11 pm constituted a nuisance.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to install carpets in her bedrooms and wear soft-soled shoes between 11 pm and 7 am, and awarded $200 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed a dispute with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation repeatedly failed to properly respond to her records requests, delayed providing records, and refused to provide others without reasonable excuse.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that several requests were deemed abandoned due to the applicant's failure to file a dispute within the prescribed time.

However, for the remaining requests, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide core records without charge and non-core records upon payment of a reasonable fee.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay a $1,000 penalty for refusing to provide records without reasonable excuse, $150 in costs, and directed the board members to retake mandatory director training.