Roger Bilodeau

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought access to core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 3 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide the requested records, including periodic information certificates, financial statements, auditor's reports, and the reserve fund plan.

The respondent was also ordered to pay a $5,000 penalty and $150 in filing fees, and to credit the applicant's common expenses to ensure she does not bear the cost of the penalty, filing fees, or the corporation's legal fees.

The applicant condominium owner filed a nuisance application against her tenant neighbours, alleging unreasonable disturbances from backyard lighting, laundry odours, noise, and marijuana smoke.

The respondents filed counterclaims regarding the applicant's backyard lighting and behaviour.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that both parties had created a nuisance through their respective backyard lighting setups, which spilled over onto each other's properties.

All other claims regarding odour, noise, and smoke were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.

Both parties were ordered to modify their lighting to prevent spillover, and no costs were awarded.

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

The respondent provided most core records but withheld certain non-core records, including legal invoices and historical service agreements, citing the broad nature of the request and demanding labour fees for redaction and retrieval.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the applicant was not on a fishing expedition and was entitled to the outstanding non-core records.

However, the Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to charge a reasonable fee of $60 to $75 per hour, up to a maximum of $450, for the labour required to retrieve and redact the records.

The Tribunal declined to award a penalty but ordered the respondent to pay $200 in costs to the applicant.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, brought an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that floating fountain lights installed by the respondent condominium corporation in a common element lake constituted an unreasonable nuisance.

The applicants claimed the light trespassed onto their property and negatively impacted their use and enjoyment of their home.

The Tribunal found that the brightness and intensity of the fountain lights caused an unreasonable nuisance, annoyance, or disruption in contravention of section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent was ordered to adjust the lights so the illumination stops short of the applicants' property and to reimburse the applicants' filing fees.