Roger Bilodeau

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to disqualify the applicant's proposed representative, a friend and fellow unit owner who had his own similar active case against the corporation.

The respondent argued the representation violated Rule 9.1(b) regarding indirect gains and Rule 9.6 regarding abuse of process.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no evidence the representative would receive a direct or indirect gain, and concluding that representation by someone who previously litigated similar issues against the same respondent does not constitute an abuse of process.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested records relating to fencing requirements and board minutes regarding the denial of her section 98 request.

The respondent condominium corporation delayed providing the records due to administrative errors by its management company.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the delay constituted a refusal without a reasonable excuse for the fencing records, though the corporation had a reasonable excuse for not providing draft minutes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $500 penalty and $100 in costs, but dismissed the applicant's claim regarding the adequacy of the corporation's records.

The applicant, a condominium owner, challenged the validity and enforcement of the condominium corporation's visitor parking rules, as well as chargebacks levied against her for alleged violations.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the visitor parking rules valid but determined that several chargebacks issued prior to the enactment of a specific rule, or without proper basis, were invalid.

The Tribunal ordered the condominium corporation to reimburse the applicant $1,880.99 for the invalid chargebacks and dismissed the applicant's harassment claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant unit owner sought an order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to produce an insurance denial letter related to a flood incident, along with a penalty and costs.

The corporation maintained that the requested record did not exist and was not in its control, as its insurance broker and insurer declined to provide a formal denial letter.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation had a reasonable excuse for not providing the record because it did not possess it.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order requiring the respondent unit owner to comply with its no-smoking rule and section 117(2)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent repeatedly smoked in his unit and on common elements, causing smoke and odour migration to other units despite numerous warnings.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to immediately cease smoking on the property and awarded the applicant damages for pre-litigation enforcement costs, plus partial legal costs and disbursements for the Tribunal proceeding.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, filed an application against their neighbour and the condominium corporation, alleging that cigarette smoke and cat litter odours from the neighbour's unit constituted a nuisance.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the odours substantially interfered with the applicants' quiet enjoyment and constituted a nuisance under the Condominium Act.

However, because the respondent was protected by a legacy clause exempting him from a newly adopted no-smoking rule, the Tribunal could not order him to stop smoking.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to continue mitigation measures, including keeping doors closed, running an air purifier, and cleaning the cat litter daily, and found that the condominium corporation had fulfilled its enforcement obligations.

The applicant condominium owner sought an order allowing his tenant to park a van with a roof rack in his designated outdoor parking space, despite the respondent condominium corporation's assertion that the van exceeded the 1.90-metre height limit set out in its Declaration and Rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the van's height, including the roof rack, clearly exceeded the explicit limit in the Declaration.

The Tribunal held that the statutory reasonableness test for condominium rules did not apply to the Declaration itself.

The Tribunal ordered that the condominium corporation was entitled to enforce the height restriction and seek the removal of the van, but declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant brought a motion to have his name redacted from a previously published Condominium Authority Tribunal decision.

He argued that publication could lead to hostile behaviour from a neighbour, damage his professional reputation, and negatively affect the value of his unit.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to establish that his privacy interests outweighed the strong public interest in the open court principle.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking compliance with a prior settlement agreement regarding the production of condominium records.

The parties agreed to settle the matter in Stage 3.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide the outstanding records, subject to necessary redactions, and to reimburse the applicant's $125 filing fee.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, filed an application against the condominium corporation alleging it failed to address unreasonable noise emanating from the unit above his.

The applicant also disputed chargebacks levied against him for compliance letters regarding noise allegedly emanating from his own unit.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation failed to adequately investigate the applicant's complaints and ordered it to hold a meeting to address the issue.

The Tribunal also found that while some complaints against the applicant were substantiated, the corporation did not properly investigate all of them before issuing compliance letters.

The corporation was ordered to reimburse half the cost of the compliance letters and half the applicant's filing fee.

The respondent brought a motion to reopen a Condominium Authority Tribunal case over seven months after a default decision was issued against him for failing to participate.

He argued that he was on medical leave due to emotional and mental distress.

The Tribunal applied the factors for reopening a case and found that the respondent's medical notes did not justify his extended failure to engage with the Tribunal or seek accommodations.

The motion to reopen was dismissed due to the unjustified delay and the importance of finality in proceedings.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached a settlement agreement regarding access to records related to a major renovation project.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with multiple deadlines and requirements in the settlement agreement, including contacting contractors for engineering materials and communicating the results to the applicant.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to take specific steps to comply with the agreement and to reimburse the applicant's filing fee, but denied the applicant's request for penalties.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 3.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that it wished to withdraw its case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed without costs pursuant to Rule 43.1(d) of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought an application against the condominium corporation alleging failure to properly manage and enforce rules regarding visitor parking, outdoor common elements, and storage in parking spaces.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that while the corporation had made some efforts, it needed to implement better mechanisms to monitor and enforce visitor parking and storage rules.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request to destroy or seal a warning letter sent by the corporation's counsel, finding no jurisdiction or grounds to do so.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied, with the Tribunal ordering each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 3.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that she wished to withdraw her case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed without costs pursuant to Rule 43.1(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

During Stage 3 of the proceedings, the applicant informed the Tribunal that she wished to withdraw her case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed without costs pursuant to Rule 43.1(d) of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation sought costs after the respondent tenant removed a non-compliant dog from the unit during the proceedings.

The tenant had kept a large dog contrary to the condominium's declaration and ignored multiple requests to remove it.

The unit owners did not participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' delayed compliance and non-participation warranted a costs award, but not on a full indemnity basis.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner and occupants to permanently remove two dogs from their unit for breaching the corporation's pet rules, which included a 25-pound weight limit and registration requirements.

The respondents argued that one dog was a support animal and the other was under the weight limit, but failed to provide adequate medical documentation or a timely veterinarian's certificate.

The Tribunal found the respondents in breach of the pet rules but granted them 60 days to provide proper documentation for a disability-related accommodation for the support dog and a weight certificate for the other dog, failing which the dogs must be removed.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondents to pay $2,000 in damages for pre-Tribunal enforcement expenses and $6,751.73 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against the respondent unit owner for breaching its governing documents by smoking cannabis in his unit and the common elements.

The respondent failed to participate in the written hearing.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent's actions created an unreasonable nuisance due to smoke and odour, violating the corporation's rules and the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease smoking cannabis on the premises and to pay $4,890.07 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested access to audio/video recordings of the corporation's 2022 virtual annual general meeting and various board meetings.

The respondent corporation claimed it did not possess the AGM recording, as it was held by its law firm, and that the board meeting recording had been inadvertently deleted.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal held that the law firm acted as an agent, making the AGM recording a record of the corporation subject to disclosure.

The Tribunal accepted that the board meeting recording was deleted without bad faith.

The respondent was ordered to provide the AGM recording and pay a $250 penalty and $200 in costs.