Robert Weinberg

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, challenged the respondent condominium corporation's visitor parking policy and its enforcement actions against their vehicle.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the policy, which restricted visitor parking and required registration without being formally enacted as a rule under the Condominium Act, 1998, was an improperly implemented rule.

Consequently, the policy and the corporation's actions to enforce it, including ticketing the applicant's vehicle, were invalid and unenforceable.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to cease enforcing the policy until properly enacted and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant, a condominium owner, filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal after the respondent condominium corporation failed to adequately respond to requests for records regarding a change in condominium management providers.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide an unredacted record of owners, adequate board minutes reflecting the resolutions to change managers, and all requested contracts.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent refused to provide the records without reasonable excuse, but declined to order a penalty.

The respondent was ordered to produce the outstanding records and pay $200 in costs.

The applicant condominium owner requested a copy of the corporation's fire safety plan.

The respondent corporation failed to respond to the request or participate in the early stages of the Tribunal process.

During the hearing, the respondent provided the record at no cost and conceded that a penalty was appropriate.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $300 penalty for failing to provide the record without a reasonable excuse, along with $205 in costs.

The applicant brought a motion to correct or clarify a previous order that dismissed his application for condominium records.

The applicant argued the previous decision wrongly interpreted evidence and was unfair.

The Tribunal held that Rule 30 of its Rules of Practice only permits corrections of typographical, calculation, or similar minor errors, and does not grant jurisdiction to reconsider substantive findings or weigh evidence anew.

The motion was denied for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant brought a second motion requesting the Tribunal to reconsider its earlier decision denying a motion to correct or clarify a dismissal order.

The applicant sought to correct perceived incorrect statements of fact and misrepresentations.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the requested changes were substantive and beyond its jurisdiction under Rule 30 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Tribunal also noted that the matter was moot as the dismissal order had already been published online.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 30 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice to correct or clarify a previous decision that dismissed his application for condominium records.

The applicant argued that the previous decision misrepresented his testimony and submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to make the requested changes, as Rule 30 only permits the correction of typographical, calculation, or similar minor errors, not substantive changes to the decision's characterization of evidence or arguments.

The applicant, a former unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order directing the respondent condominium corporation to provide electronic copies of certain records.

During the proceedings, the applicant sold his unit.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant was no longer entitled to obtain records under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the applicant lost standing when he sold his unit, and that a subsequent agency agreement from another owner only authorized examination, not obtaining copies.

The applicant, a former condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order directing the respondent condominium corporation to provide electronic copies of certain records.

Before the hearing concluded, the applicant sold his unit and obtained an agency authorization from another owner to examine the records.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant was no longer entitled to the records under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the applicant lost his status as an owner upon the sale of his unit, and the agency authorization did not permit him to obtain copies of the records or continue the existing application.