Patricia McQuaid

The applicant, a unit owner, sought to withdraw his case against the condominium corporation regarding the enforcement of parking rules.

The respondent opposed a withdrawal without costs, arguing it had incurred significant expenses and that the applicant was engaging in a pattern of disruptive litigation.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal without costs, finding that the applicant's request was reasonable in light of a recent Tribunal decision in a related matter and that he had not behaved vexatiously or unduly delayed the proceedings.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant unit owner's case under Rules 17.1(a) and (c) of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant alleged the corporation failed to enforce its rules against the board president, whose vehicle was leaking oil in a parking spot.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the reasonableness of the corporation's enforcement actions was a central issue, not a minor one, and that an improper purpose was not established at this preliminary stage.

The Tribunal set guidelines to keep the proceeding focused on the relevant parking enforcement issues.

The applicant, a condominium owner, requested the record of owners and mortgagees to run for a board position.

The respondent condominium corporation refused, alleging the applicant intended to use the list to harass board members and owners, and thus the request was not solely related to her interests as an owner.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent failed to prove the applicant was disentitled to the record, as her stated intention to run for the board was related to her interests as an owner.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the record and pay $200 in costs, but declined to award a penalty against the respondent.

The applicant condominium owner submitted a records request to the respondent condominium corporation seeking various email communications and authorizations related to a new online communication platform.

The respondent provided an email communications log and a management contract, but failed to use the prescribed form.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the requested records had been provided and that the failure to use the prescribed form did not constitute a refusal without reasonable excuse.

No penalty was ordered, but the respondent was ordered to pay $200 in costs for Tribunal fees.

The applicant condominium owner submitted a records request to the respondent condominium corporation.

The corporation provided the requested records, including the declaration, rules, periodic information certificates, and board meeting minutes.

The applicant challenged the adequacy of the records, arguing the declaration lacked mediation provisions, the rules were unsigned, and the minutes lacked detail.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the records provided were adequate and in accordance with the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal declined to award a penalty or costs to either party.

The applicant unit owner brought a dispute to the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking the removal of a portable basketball net placed by a neighbouring owner on her exclusive use driveway.

The applicant argued the net violated the condominium's declaration and rules regarding the use of driveways for motor vehicle parking.

The Tribunal found that the placement of the basketball net did not violate the governing documents within its jurisdiction over parking and storage, and dismissed the request for enforcement.

The applicant was awarded $200 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for records including by-laws, rules, and board meeting minutes relating to visitor parking disputes.

The respondent condominium corporation provided some records but claimed no meeting minutes existed regarding the specific parking issues.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not producing the requested minutes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide board meeting minutes for the 12 months preceding the request, and awarded the applicant a $250 penalty and $200 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium owner, submitted a records request to the respondent condominium corporation for various invoices.

The respondent initially agreed to provide some records but later refused, arguing the request was not solely related to the applicant's interest as an owner due to ongoing board governance disputes.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the records, as her interest as an owner was not diminished by the parallel disputes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the records subject to a reasonable fee of $30 per hour for labour and 20 cents per page.

Requests for a penalty and costs from both parties were dismissed.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to reopen a case after failing to participate in the Tribunal proceedings.

The corporation argued its property manager failed to notify the Board of the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it unreasonable for the corporation to rely on its property manager while expecting the unit owner to question the manager's performance.

The Tribunal also found no unfairness in refusing to reopen the case, as the disputed settlement agreement record was not protected by litigation privilege.

The unit owner's request for costs was denied.

The applicant condominium owner requested various core and non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to respond to the request and did not participate in the Condominium Authority Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to all requested records, including a settlement agreement from a civil action commenced by the corporation on behalf of the owners, as the litigation privilege exception did not apply.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the records, pay a $3,000 penalty for its willful disregard of its legal obligations, and pay $150 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested financial statements and legal fee invoices from the respondent condominium corporation.

After the respondent provided redacted invoices that the applicant initially found unsatisfactory, the respondent clarified the documents during the tribunal proceeding.

The applicant confirmed satisfaction with the records provided.

The tribunal ordered the case closed and directed the respondent to pay the applicant's $150 filing fee as costs, with a provision for a common expense credit if unpaid.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a formal request for core records (declaration, by-laws, and rules) to the respondent condominium corporation following water damage to his unit.

The respondent failed to respond to the request and did not participate in the Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested records at no cost.

Finding that the respondent willfully disregarded its legal obligations without reasonable excuse, the Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay a $2,500 penalty and $150 in costs, with a provision allowing the applicant to set off these amounts against his common expenses.

The applicant condominium owner and the respondent condominium corporation reached a settlement regarding two records requests.

The parties agreed that all records from the first request had been provided except for meeting minutes, which the applicant withdrew his request for.

The parties also agreed to a protocol for the applicant to submit questions regarding specific repairs and for the respondent to answer them.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating these terms and closing the case.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought access to various corporate records including audited financial statements, bank statements, and a property management contract.

The respondent condominium corporation provided some records during the tribunal process and agreed to provide the remaining bank statements without charge.

The tribunal found that the respondent was not unreasonably withholding the audited financial statements, as they were not yet completed due to missing documents from previous property managers.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the remaining records in accordance with its undertakings.