Sonja Hodis

The applicant condominium owner filed an application alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested records, including meeting minutes and updated rules, and improperly redacted board minutes.

The Tribunal found that the corporation had provided all responsive records, that an informal town hall did not require minutes, and that the redactions to board minutes were justified under the litigation exception.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $1,000 in nominal costs due to late document submissions that increased the respondent's legal fees.

The applicant unit owner alleged that the respondent unit owner above him was creating unreasonable noise contrary to s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, and sought an order for the condominium corporation to repair the subfloor.

The Tribunal found that the noises were creaking sounds caused by normal walking and the building's construction, not by any unreasonable activity.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs to the condominium corporation.

The applicant filed a case with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding noise issues allegedly caused by damage or lack of repair to the common elements.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the case, arguing res judicata based on a previous consent order, lack of jurisdiction over repair issues, and unfairness regarding costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the previous consent order did not bar claims for subsequent noise issues, and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over noise nuisance claims under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, even if the applicant requests a repair as a remedy.

The case was allowed to proceed.

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

The applicant subsequently requested permission to withdraw the case with no award of costs or penalty.

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

The applicant unit owner made requests for records from the respondent condominium corporation.

During Stage 2 mediation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal, the parties reached an agreement regarding the production of outstanding non-core financial records relating to patio and balcony rebuilds.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the applicant to pay a $100 fee, following which the respondent would provide the specified redacted invoices, with no order as to costs.

The applicant brought a motion to merge two condominium records cases currently in the negotiation stage.

The Tribunal initially sent notice of the motion to the condominium corporation rather than its counsel, resulting in an order made without the respondent's input.

To ensure a fair and efficient process under Rule 4.1, the Tribunal corrected the order and directed that the two cases, which relate to records requests submitted within a short period, be merged into a single proceeding.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking minutes of board meetings held over a 12-month period.

During the mediation stage, the respondent condominium corporation provided the requested minutes, with some redactions, and explained that no meetings were held during three of the months.

The parties agreed to a consent order resolving the dispute, under which the respondent agreed to reimburse the applicant's $75 filing fee and the applicant withdrew his request for a penalty.

The Tribunal issued the consent order and closed the case.

The applicant brought a case before the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding noise complaints.

During Stage 3 of the online dispute resolution process, the parties agreed to settle the matter.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to retain an engineer to complete an investigation into the noise complaints, with all parties ordered to cooperate and provide access to their units.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application against the condominium corporation and the former owner of the unit above his, complaining of unreasonable noise and vibration.

During the proceedings, it was revealed that the upper unit had been sold to a new owner.

The Tribunal ordered that the new owner be added as an intervenor, as she would be directly affected by any potential remedies.

The Tribunal also adjourned the hearing for six weeks and directed the condominium corporation to conduct an independent third-party investigation into the noise, while requiring the applicant and the new owner to maintain activity and noise logs.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against a unit owner and an unidentified occupant for breaching the corporation's non-smoking and quiet enjoyment rules.

The respondents failed to participate in the hearing, which proceeded as a default proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the respondents violated the rules by smoking tobacco and marijuana in the unit and common elements, creating a nuisance odour.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to cease smoking and awarded the applicant $3,500 in legal costs, $864.13 in pre-litigation indemnification, and $150 in tribunal fees.

The appellant, a board member of a condominium corporation, appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a minor variance allowing the applicants to construct a deck with a reduced rear yard setback and increased lot coverage.

The appellant argued the variance would interfere with the condominium corporation's easement and restrictive covenants regarding maintenance access to a shoreline revetment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and that the enforcement of private restrictive covenants and easements falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal requesting an accessible parking space for his spouse and challenging the reassignment of parking spots.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the case, arguing the issues were resolved because the applicant's spouse had passed away and the parking spots had been reassigned according to the survey.

The Tribunal found the issues were moot and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal also awarded $1,000 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant's unreasonable behaviour in raising irrelevant issues.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an interim injunction regarding a family cottage property.

The parties, who are siblings, disputed ownership and use of the property after the defendant changed the locks and excluded the plaintiffs.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' claim for a constructive or resulting trust based on their financial contributions and historical use.

The court granted the CPL and an interim injunction preserving the status quo, allowing both families exclusive use of separate cottages on the property pending the resolution of the action.

The moving parties, named as estate trustees in the deceased's will, brought a motion to remove a notice of objection filed by the responding party, the deceased's daughter.

The responding party alleged undue influence and unfitness of the trustees but provided no evidentiary basis to support her claims.

The court found that the will was validly executed and that the responding party failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold required to call the will's validity into question.

The motion was granted, the notice of objection was removed, and the court directed the issuance of the Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.

Following an earlier costs endorsement, the respondents objected to the applicant’s reply submissions, arguing they exceeded the page limit set by the court and should be ruled inadmissible.

The court determined that the reply submissions were proper reply and therefore admissible, but accepted that the applicant’s non‑compliance with the page limit affected the costs incurred.

As a result, the court reduced the costs attributable to the reply submissions.

The court varied the earlier costs endorsement and ordered the respondents to pay a reduced amount in costs to the applicant.

Following a successful condominium compliance application requiring the removal of a dog exceeding the condominium corporation’s weight restriction, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The respondents had argued the dog was required as a therapy animal and alleged discrimination under the Human Rights Code, but failed to establish a prima facie case.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized fairness and reasonableness in fixing costs.

The court held that full indemnity costs are generally appropriate in condominium compliance proceedings to avoid shifting enforcement costs onto innocent unit owners.

The respondents were ordered to pay $47,000 in costs jointly and severally, recoverable as common expenses and enforceable as a lien against the condominium unit if unpaid.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondents to permanently remove a dog weighing over 25 pounds from their unit, in compliance with the condominium's rules.

The respondents argued the dog was a service/therapy dog required for the respondent's mental disability and sought accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The court found the respondents failed to establish a disability within the meaning of the Code, as the medical evidence only cited stress and lacked a specific diagnosis.

The court ordered the removal of the dog and declared the applicant had not discriminated against the respondents.

Following settlement of an application brought by a condominium corporation to enforce compliance with condominium rules and compel sale of a unit, the only remaining issue was costs.

The corporation sought full indemnity costs exceeding $59,000.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, noting the respondent’s prolonged non-compliance with the condominium’s declaration, rules, and by-laws despite repeated warnings.

While recognizing that full indemnity costs were appropriate in condominium enforcement proceedings where owners’ misconduct forces litigation, the court reduced certain claimed fees as excessive.

The court fixed costs on a full indemnity basis at $48,692.09 and ordered that unpaid costs be added to the unit’s common expenses and secured as a lien under the Condominium Act.

Two condominium corporations disputed responsibility for utility costs associated with shared cooling towers located on the respondent’s property but servicing the applicant’s building.

The applicant sought a stay of a Superior Court action commenced by the respondent and requested that the dispute proceed through mediation and arbitration pursuant to a Shared Facilities Agreement and s.132 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court held that the agreement and statute required disputes between condominium corporations concerning shared facilities to proceed through mediation and arbitration.

The respondent’s argument that the matter should remain in court due to an unjust enrichment claim was rejected, as arbitral tribunals may grant equitable remedies under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court stayed the Toronto action and directed the parties to follow the contractual and statutory dispute resolution process.

The applicant condominium corporation sought costs following a successful application to stay the respondent's action and an earlier injunction preventing the respondent from shutting off air conditioning services.

The court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs for the injunction phase, finding the respondent's threats to shut off services unreasonable and unnecessary.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs for the stay phase, as the respondent improperly pursued a court action instead of the mandatory mediation and arbitration process.

Total costs of $32,147.88 were awarded to the applicant.