Tony Bui

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

After requesting to move the file to the tribunal decision stage, the applicant failed to pay the required fee by the deadline.

The tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application challenging a compliance letter issued by the respondent corporation alleging she breached its Harassment Rule.

The applicant argued the corporation lacked the authority to issue the letter and failed to follow proper procedures, but explicitly stated she was not asking the Tribunal to determine if her conduct actually constituted a nuisance or harassment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding the dispute was about governance and enforcement procedures rather than a dispute over a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption under the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal declined to award costs to the respondent but cautioned the applicant against using the Tribunal for governance matters in the future.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to combine two separate applications filed by the applicant: one regarding a nuisance dispute and another regarding a records dispute.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no practical benefit to combining the matters as they involved different facts and issues with no apparent connection.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's case, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the case had no reasonable prospect of success, and the application was vexatious.

The respondent also sought an order deeming the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found that the core of the complaint related to compliance with the corporation's harassment rule, which falls within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also held that the application was not clearly without merit or filed for an improper purpose.

The motion to dismiss and the request to deem the applicant a vexatious litigant were denied.

The applicant condominium owner alleged that the respondent condominium corporation failed to keep adequate records by failing to deliver, delivering late, or delivering inaccurate Periodic Information Certificates (PICs) and other certificates.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction and because the issues were minor.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the timing of delivery of information certificates under s. 26.3 of the Condominium Act, 1998, and that the alleged errors in the certificates were not significant enough to warrant a hearing.

Costs of $750 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The parties subsequently reached a private and confidential settlement agreement that resolved the issues in dispute.

Pursuant to Rule 43.1(b) of the CAT's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal ordered the case closed and directed that all documents and messages shared during the negotiation and mediation stages remain private and confidential.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its application to evict the tenant and seeking compensation for mold damage.

The Board had found the landlord failed to prove the tenant caused the mold and granted the tenant a rent abatement for inadequate ventilation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the Board misstated the legal test for causation in its conclusion, the error did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice because the Board's factual finding that the tenant did not cause the mold was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion requesting the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) to order the respondent condominium corporation to stop a mediation and arbitration process commenced under section 132(4) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The respondent brought a countermotion to dismiss the case, arguing the issues fell outside the CAT's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the application as it related to indemnification for costs incurred in enforcing an anti-harassment rule, which falls under provisions governing nuisance activities.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's motion to stop the arbitration, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to make orders regarding external dispute resolution processes.

Both motions were dismissed.

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 plaintiff condominium corporation sought an order for possession of the defendants' unit pursuant to a statutory lien for unpaid common expenses, which included costs from prior compliance litigation regarding defective plumbing.

The defendants, self-represented, had resisted the plumbing replacement and made unfounded fraud allegations, leading to significant legal costs.

The court determined the value of the lien, specifically excluding the costs of the lien enforcement action itself based on a strict statutory interpretation of the Condominium Act.

The court granted a possessory order, suspended for 60 days to allow the defendants to discharge the lien, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff for the action.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use tall building development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 80-storey tower with a 17-storey podium.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of conditions.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against a tenant and his landlord for persistent noise nuisances and parking violations.

The tenant hosted loud parties late into the night and parked an oversize vehicle in the underground garage, later moving it to an accessible surface spot with an invalid permit.

Neither the tenant nor the landlord participated in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the tenant in breach of the Condominium Act and the corporation's governing documents.

The landlord was held jointly and severally liable for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure his tenant's compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to cease the violations and pay $6,767.70 in enforcement and legal costs.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a case to enforce pet provisions against the respondent.

The respondent sought accommodation under the Human Rights Code to keep her dog and requested a confidentiality order to protect her privacy regarding the reasons for the accommodation.

The Tribunal granted the confidentiality order, noting the applicant's consent and the need to protect the respondent's dignity and well-being, sealing specific exhibits and online hearing message threads.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to remove the respondent's German Shepherd, which exceeded the condominium's weight and breed restrictions.

The respondent sought accommodation under the Human Rights Code, arguing the dog was necessary for her Code-related needs.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the dog was indispensable to the respondent and that the applicant failed to demonstrate that accommodating the dog would cause undue hardship.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent was permitted to keep the dog.

Costs of $6,250 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The case proceeded to Stage 2 mediation, and the applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3.

The applicant failed to advance the case within the required 15-day period.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the case closed and dismissed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant brought a motion to join two cases she initiated against the respondent condominium corporation at the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

One case involved the enforcement of a settlement agreement and the other related to a request for records.

The respondent consented to the joinder.

The Tribunal found that hearing both cases jointly would allow for a more focused and efficient process, as the parties were the same and there would be overlap in witness testimony.

The motion was granted and the cases were ordered to be heard together pursuant to Rule 18.2 of the CAT Rules of Practice.

The defendant, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1255 (MTCC 1255), brought a motion to stay an action commenced by 23 St. Thomas Inc. and Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1271 (MTCC 1271) in favour of mandatory arbitration under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court found that the pith and substance of MTCC 1271's claims related to the interpretation and application of the Reciprocal Agreement and Indemnity Agreement, making them arbitrable.

Consequently, MTCC 1271's claims were stayed.

However, the court declined to stay 23 St. Thomas Inc.'s claims, as it was not a party to the agreements and there was insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil.

The motion was granted in part, with an arbitrator appointed for the arbitrable claims.

The appellants appealed a compliance order requiring them to remove faulty Kitec plumbing from their condominium unit and allow inspection, along with an order for costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that Kitec plumbing constituted a dangerous condition under s. 117 of the Condominium Act, justifying the remedial order.

The court also upheld the full indemnity costs award against the appellants due to their recalcitrance, fixing appeal costs at $4,500.

The applicant, a unit owner, requested access to condominium records including board meeting minutes and auditor reports.

The respondent provided minutes for only two meetings held in 2020 and stated no 2018 auditor report existed.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent provided all existing records, the board meeting minutes were inadequate under s. 55(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, as they failed to record numerous business decisions made by the board outside of formal meetings.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty but awarded the applicant $200 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application for a compliance order under section 134 of the Condominium Act to permit entry into the respondents' unit to inspect and confirm the removal of Kitec plumbing.

The respondents had repeatedly refused entry to the corporation's engineers, preventing the building from being certified as Kitec-free.

The court found that Kitec plumbing is a dangerous condition and that the respondents breached their obligations under the Act and the condominium's declaration.

The court granted the compliance order and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant.