Victor 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 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 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 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 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 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 applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order directing the respondent unit owner to comply with the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules regarding noise and smoking.

The tribunal found that the respondent and his occupants created an unreasonable noise nuisance through repeated late-night disturbances and physical altercations with neighbours.

The tribunal also found that smoking on the common element BBQ terrace violated the corporation's rules and constituted an annoyance.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to comply with the noise and smoking provisions and to reimburse the applicant's $150 filing fee.

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 applicants, unit owners living below the condominium's gym, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding unreasonable noise and vibration caused by the dropping of free weights.

The Tribunal found that the dropping of weights constituted a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption under s. 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, particularly during early morning and late evening hours.

The Tribunal concluded that the condominium corporation had permitted the activity by failing to adequately investigate or restrict the use of free weights.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to restrict the use of free weights to between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and awarded the applicants their $200 filing fee.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order against a unit owner and her tenant for multiple nuisance complaints, including noise, smoking, and threatening behaviour.

The Tribunal found that the tenant's actions constituted a noise nuisance under the Condominium Act and violated the corporation's rules regarding noise and smoking.

The Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction over the tenant's threatening and violent conduct.

The Tribunal also found that the unit owner failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure her tenant's compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the tenant to cease the nuisance and comply with the rules, and ordered the owner and tenant to jointly reimburse the corporation's filing fees.

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.

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.