Victor J. Yee

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal decision that allowed the respondent unitholder to park in designated accessible parking spaces and awarded him $1,500 in damages.

The appellant argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the parking dispute was connected to broader harassment claims falling under the section 117 carveout of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the parking issue was severable and within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction.

The court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the unitholder was entitled to use the accessible spaces, the condominium could not charge back its enforcement costs, and the damages award was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed without costs due to the respondent's vexatious conduct during the hearing.

The applicant condominium corporation and the respondent unit owner reached a settlement during Stage 2 mediation regarding complaints of unreasonable odours emanating from the respondent's unit.

The parties agreed to a consent order requiring the respondent to comply with the Condominium Act, 1998 and the corporation's rules.

The applicant agreed to provide 48 hours' notice for any future odour complaints before taking action and waived its right to seek costs related to the application or remediation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued the consent order to resolve the dispute.

The applicants filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding noise and vibration from a gym located above their unit.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to add seven individual residents as parties to the application, arguing they were responsible for the noise.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the dispute concerned the corporation's management of a shared element, not the individual residents, and that adding the individuals would delay the proceeding.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought two applications to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested election records and breached a prior settlement agreement regarding virtual election procedures.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had provided the records in its possession and did not refuse the request without reasonable excuse, thus no penalty was warranted.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the respondent complied with the settlement agreement's terms concerning the display of voting results and the appointment of scrutineers.

Both applications were dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to mutual delays.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant unit owner's application regarding allegedly misleading parking signage.

The respondent argued the Condominium Authority Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the dispute related to maintenance and repair or the physical placement of signs, rather than provisions governing parking.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that a complaint about confusing parking signs is a dispute about the communication of rules, not a dispute relating to provisions in the governing documents that prohibit, restrict, or govern parking.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a self-represented condominium owner, brought a motion to disqualify the respondent condominium corporation's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest and civil fraud.

The applicant argued that counsel was in a conflict because a colleague at his law firm was a member of the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to disqualify counsel to prevent an abuse of process under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and its Rules of Practice.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no clear evidence of a conflict of interest, as the Tribunal member had no involvement in the case and institutional safeguards were in place, nor was there any evidence of fraud.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent to remove a dog from their unit, enforcing a 'no pets' declaration.

The respondent argued the dog was an emotional support animal for his grieving mother and requested accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the respondent failed to provide medical evidence establishing a disability-related need for accommodation.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the dog within six weeks and required the respondent to pay the $200 filing fee, but declined to award legal costs due to a misleading compliance letter sent by the applicant's counsel regarding access to medical information.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that she experienced unreasonable noise from the unit above hers following a renovation and that the condominium corporation failed to enforce its flooring rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal reviewed acoustical testing reports and noise logs, concluding that the evidence did not establish the noise was unreasonable or constituted a nuisance.

The Tribunal also found that the condominium corporation acted reasonably in investigating the complaints and working with the upstairs owner to mitigate potential noise sources, thereby complying with its rules.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought full indemnity for legal costs incurred to enforce a no-smoking rule against the respondent unit owner.

The substantive issues were resolved by a consent order in which the respondent agreed to comply with the rule.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was entitled to some costs under the indemnification provisions of its by-laws and rules, the amounts claimed were disproportionate to the straightforward nature of the dispute.

The Tribunal awarded $2,500 for pre-Tribunal legal costs and $2,275 for Tribunal-related costs and fees.

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

After mediation reached an impasse, the applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to do so or pay the required fee within 15 days.

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

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to comply with noise and nuisance provisions in its governing documents.

The corporation presented evidence of repeated complaints over several years regarding loud music and television noise emanating from the respondent's unit during overnight hours.

The respondent denied making the noise, arguing the building had poor sound insulation.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached the governing documents by creating unreasonable noise that interfered with other owners' quiet enjoyment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the noise provisions and pay $3,700 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation applied for an order requiring the respondent tenants and intervenor owner to remove material stored in a parking unit, which violated the corporation's declaration and rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the stored material was not a motor vehicle, constituting a breach of the governing documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents and intervenor to remove the material within 21 days, failing which the corporation could remove it and charge back the costs, and awarded $150 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant in a condominium noise dispute brought a motion to file a late acoustical report after the document disclosure deadline had passed.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing prejudice and delay, while the intervenor did not object.

The Tribunal applied the test for late evidence, finding that while the report could have been obtained earlier, its potential probative value regarding whether the noise was unreasonable justified its admission.

The Tribunal granted the motion, noting that the respondent would not be unduly prejudiced and could request an adjournment to respond.

The applicant condominium corporation initiated a proceeding alleging that the respondent caused smoking odours to emanate from her unit, creating a nuisance and violating the corporation's no-smoking rule.

During mediation, the parties agreed to a consent order resolving the substantive issues, with the respondent agreeing not to allow smoking in her unit, balcony, or common elements.

The issue of costs was deferred to a separate adjudication.

The applicant condominium corporation and the respondent unit owner agreed to settle their dispute during Stage 2 mediation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to retain a commercial cleaner for twice-weekly deep cleaning of his unit to prevent unreasonable odours and pests.

The order also affirmed the applicant's right to inspect the unit and, if necessary, perform remediation at the respondent's expense.

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 applicant brought a request for records before the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The parties settled the matter during the Stage 2 process.

The Tribunal issued a consent order closing the file and ordering the respondent to pay the applicant $75.00 for Tribunal filing fees.

The applicant condominium owner requested various non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent provided some records but failed to provide others, claiming they could not be located due to poor record-keeping by previous management.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to keep adequate records as required by section 55(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $1,500 penalty for refusing to provide records without reasonable excuse, reimburse $367.50 in excessive fees charged for the records, provide missing bank statements, and pay $200 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application regarding the respondent owner's storage of items and parking on common elements.

The respondent brought a motion for early dismissal, arguing the applicant's board lacked quorum to bring the application and that the issue was res judicata.

The applicant consented to the dismissal based on the lack of quorum, acknowledging that one of its two board members had ceased to be a director for failing to complete mandatory training.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the application.

The applicant brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation for an order requiring it to enforce its noise rule against the owner of the unit above hers.

The respondent brought a motion to add the upstairs unit owner as a respondent or intervenor.

The Tribunal found that while the corporation was the proper respondent, the upstairs unit owner could be directly impacted by the decision.

The Tribunal ordered that the upstairs unit owner be added as an intervenor.