Victor J. Yee

The applicant, a long-time condominium resident, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that she was subjected to unreasonable noise from neighbouring units and that the respondent condominium corporation failed to adequately investigate or stop it.

The Tribunal found that some of the noises were related to normal living or authorized repairs and were not unreasonable.

While the source of other mysterious carpentry noises could not be determined, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent's investigations were reasonable, even if not expeditious.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought two cases before the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding requests for condominium records.

The parties reached an agreement through the Tribunal's online dispute resolution system to resolve both cases.

The Tribunal issued a consent order closing the cases and ordering the respondent condominium corporation to pay $3,000 to the applicant.

The applicant condominium owner sought records relating to an insurance claim and a $25,000 chargeback for a grease fire.

The respondent condominium corporation provided some records but withheld others, citing the exemption for contemplated litigation under s. 55(4)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent had provided all records to which the applicant was entitled and reasonably relied on the exemption for the withheld correspondence, given the applicant's explicit threats of litigation.

The application was dismissed without costs.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal of their intention to withdraw the case, to which the respondent and intervenor agreed.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal without prejudice, ordered the parties to bear their own costs, and closed the case.

The applicant alleged she was subject to unreasonable noise.

The respondent condominium corporation filed redacted security reports that were difficult to understand.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to refile the reports with only sensitive personal information redacted, subject to a confidentiality order restricting their use to the hearing.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

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

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitration award interpreting a Condominium Services Agreement (CSA) between a condominium corporation and a service provider.

The arbitrator had ruled that the CSA permitted the service provider to include profit in fee increases during the COVID-19 pandemic when services were curtailed.

The applicant argued the arbitrator erred by allowing the factual matrix to overwhelm the contract language, failing to construe the contract as a whole, and relying on subjective intentions.

The court granted leave to appeal on these extricable questions of law but dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The court also rejected allegations of bias.

The applicant condominium owner requested an unredacted copy of a contract between the condominium corporation and a plumbing contractor for a Kitec piping replacement project, including suite-type designs.

The respondent corporation provided a heavily redacted contract, incorrectly relying on section 55(4)(c) of the Condominium Act, 1998, claiming the suite-type designs related to specific units.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the redactions were improper as suite-types represent multiple units and do not identify specific owners.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the unredacted contract and awarded a $500 penalty plus $200 in costs against the respondent for effectively refusing the records without reasonable excuse.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for core and non-core records.

The respondent condominium corporation provided the core records but refused the non-core records, arguing the request was not on the proper form, was too broad, and that the records either did not exist or were exempt due to contemplated litigation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent refused some of the non-core records without a reasonable excuse, as the request clearly identified the desired elevator maintenance records.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the specific elevator records, pay a $1,500 penalty, and reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought an application against a neighbouring unit owner, alleging that second-hand smoke was migrating into his unit and causing a nuisance.

The respondent was a legacy smoker exempted from the condominium's general smoking prohibition, subject to not causing a nuisance.

Relying on an odour migration assessment and security logs, the Tribunal found that the respondent's unit was the probable source of the smoke odours and that the migration constituted an unreasonable nuisance.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to seal the cracks around her door and furnace at her own expense to abate the nuisance, and to reimburse the applicant's Tribunal filing fees.

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Tribunal alleging the respondent owner failed to comply with pet rules by allowing her large dog to be off-leash and out of control on common elements.

Following the application, incidents involving alleged injuries to residents occurred, raising jurisdictional questions under section 117 of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal found it retained jurisdiction because the central issue remained rule compliance, which could be determined independently of the injury allegations.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent breached the pet rules and ordered her to ensure the dog is tightly leashed and controlled by a capable person at all times on common elements, awarding partial pre-application costs and filing fees to the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a compliance order against a unit owner for alleged hoarding, denial of entry to service personnel, and an inoperable vehicle in her parking spot.

The court found that the respondent had engaged in hoarding behavior and unreasonably denied entry on several occasions, and that her car was unsightly and inoperable.

A compliance order was granted, allowing the corporation entry with notice, requiring the respondent to rectify hazards, and to restore or remove her vehicle.

However, the order was narrower than sought by the applicant, with longer notice periods and an obligation for the applicant's personnel to accommodate the respondent's health concerns.

The court declined to award costs to either party, citing divided success and the applicant's excessive allegations.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to permanently remove his cat from the premises for breaching pet provisions.

The respondent repeatedly allowed his cat to roam freely in the hallways and on other owners' balconies, which are common elements.

Despite multiple warnings and formal letters of compliance, the respondent continued to violate the rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the respondent in breach of the governing documents and ordered the permanent removal of the cat, along with $740 in damages and $2,200 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against a unit owner and occupants for breaching rules regarding smoking and noise.

The respondents did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the occupants repeatedly smoked in the unit and common elements, and created unreasonable noise, contrary to the condominium's rules.

The unit owner failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to comply with the rules and to pay partial compensation for enforcement costs and legal fees.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding damages to its former property management company for breach of a restrictive covenant.

The trial judge had awarded damages that included lost profits from both the appellant and a neighbouring condominium corporation that had also terminated its contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in holding the appellant liable for losses attributable to the neighbouring corporation, which was not bound by the restrictive covenant.

The damages award was reduced accordingly.

The applicant, a condominium owner, submitted requests for various core and non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent refused some records, citing exemptions under the Condominium Act, 1998, including actual or contemplated litigation.

The Tribunal found that while the application was not brought for an improper purpose overall, the request for two years of correspondence was a 'fishing expedition' and exempt.

The respondent was ordered to provide a redacted unit file and the April 1, 2022 Periodic Information Certificate.

A $100 penalty was imposed for the failure to provide the PIC, and the applicant was awarded $200 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application regarding noise from a tenanted unit.

After unsuccessful mediation, the applicant was granted permission to move to a tribunal hearing but failed to pay the required fee within 15 days.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal ordered the case closed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application regarding complaints about dogs residing in the respondent's unit.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to pay $500 towards legal costs, ensure compliance with governing documents regarding pets and guests, and report any appearances by a specific unwanted guest.

The applicants, unit owners in a condominium, filed an application regarding unreasonable noise and vibration from the gym located above their units.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute involved personal injury, repair of common elements, operational governance decisions, and noise from a different corporation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the core of the dispute was a noise nuisance complaint under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, which falls squarely within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent failed to establish that the application was clearly outside its jurisdiction at this preliminary stage.

A dispute between a condominium unit owner (Rahman) and the condominium corporation (PSCC No. 779) regarding accessible parking and alleged discrimination escalated into multiple legal proceedings.

In this action, Rahman moved for summary judgment, while the Corporation cross-moved to strike his claim as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, or alternatively, to stay the action pending other proceedings.

The court dismissed the Corporation's motion to strike but granted its motion to stay the action, rendering Rahman's summary judgment motion moot.

The court criticized the Corporation's aggressive litigation approach and Rahman's intemperate conduct, declining to award costs to the Corporation despite its partial success.