Susan Sapin

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to remove her 28.80 kg dog, Murphy, and to cease bringing other large dogs onto the property in breach of the pet rules.

The respondent claimed she was entitled to keep Murphy as an emotional support animal under the Human Rights Code and that the rules did not prohibit visiting dogs.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the rules by operating a dog-walking business and bringing other large dogs onto the property, ordering her to cease this conduct.

However, the Tribunal held that the respondent established a disability and a need for accommodation, allowing her to keep Murphy.

The applicant was awarded partial costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to cease causing unreasonable noise.

The respondent had been banging on walls and shouting at the owner of the unit above him in retaliation for normal walking noises.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent's behaviour constituted a substantial and unreasonable nuisance in breach of the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules.

The respondent was ordered to permanently cease the noise-making and to pay $4,200 in costs and filing fees.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

During Stage 2 mediation, the applicant informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a request for condominium records.

The respondent condominium corporation refused the request on the basis that the applicant was not the registered owner of the unit.

The Tribunal found that under the Condominium Act, 1998, only an owner, purchaser, or mortgagee may request records or apply to the Tribunal.

As the applicant's wife was the registered owner, the applicant lacked standing.

The parties consented to the dismissal of the case during mediation, with the respondent agreeing to process a deemed request from the applicant's wife.

The applicant and respondent consented to merge two related Condominium Authority Tribunal cases into a single proceeding.

The Tribunal ordered the merger under section 1.37(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, finding it to be the most efficient and cost-effective manner to resolve the disputes.

The second case file was ordered closed.

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

After being given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3, the applicant failed to take any steps to do so for over 15 days.

Pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, the tribunal ordered the case closed.

The applicant unit owner brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation, alleging it failed to enforce rules regarding parking, balcony storage, and locker storage.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation had failed to enforce its rules consistently, including rules prohibiting unlicensed vehicles in underground parking, residents parking in visitor spaces, and non-seasonal items stored on balconies.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to enforce its rules and reimburse the applicant's tribunal fees.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a broad request for core and non-core records dating back to 2013.

The respondent corporation provided many records but refused to provide CMRAO and CAO orders and emails, arguing they were not required to be kept.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had received all core records and most non-core records she was entitled to, though some were provided late.

The Tribunal ruled that CMRAO and CAO orders and related emails are records the corporation is required to keep and ordered their production if they exist.

The Tribunal declined to impose a penalty due to the overly broad nature of the request and the corporation's eventual compliance, but ordered the corporation to reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal, which proceeded to Stage 2 mediation.

The applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to do so for more than 30 days.

Pursuant to Rule 32.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, the tribunal ordered the case closed in Stage 2.

The applicant condominium owner sought access to various condominium records, including contractor invoices and reserve fund statements.

The parties reached a settlement using the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to provide the requested records in electronic format.