Tony Bui

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to reopen the case and vacate a previous Tribunal order that required it to provide records and pay a penalty and costs to the applicant.

The corporation argued that the applicant had sold his unit prior to the release of the decision, thereby losing his standing and entitlement to the records under s. 55(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the applicant's entitlement to records ceased upon the sale of his unit.

The motion was granted, the previous order was vacated, and the case was dismissed.

The applicant condominium owner filed two applications regarding access to records and alleged inaccuracies in Periodic Information Certificates, seeking monetary penalties.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed both applications, finding that the requested records in the first case had already been provided, and the second case was brought for an improper purpose to exert control over management.

Finding a pattern of vexatious conduct across multiple applications, the Tribunal declared the applicant a vexatious litigant and ordered that they must obtain permission before filing any future applications.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The eviction was originally granted based on the landlord requiring the unit for his son's use.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit as it raised no questions of law, only challenging discretionary and factual findings regarding an adjournment request and section 83 relief.

The court also found the appeal was an abuse of process, launched solely to obtain an automatic stay while the tenant persistently failed to pay rent.

The appeal was quashed and the stay vacated.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging errors and delays in the issuance of Periodic Information Certificates (PICs) by the respondent condominium corporation, and sought a penalty.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the case.

The Tribunal found that its jurisdiction under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998 is limited to disputes over access to records, not the content or timing of PICs.

As there was no allegation that the respondent refused access to records, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty.

The case was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested email correspondence referenced in board meeting minutes regarding a gas contract renewal.

The respondent condominium corporation failed to reply within the mandated 30-day period but argued the emails did not exist or were not official records.

The Tribunal found that the emails, even if they existed, did not constitute records under the Condominium Act, 1998.

However, because the respondent failed to reply to the records request within the statutory timeframe, the Tribunal awarded the applicant $200 in costs for the tribunal filing fees.