CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: April 29, 2022
CASE: 2022-00108N
Citation: Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 132 v. Evans, 2022 ONCAT 38
Order under Rule 4 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s Rules of Practice.
Member: Ian Darling, Chair
The Applicant,
Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 132
Represented by David Lu, Representative
The Respondent,
Ross Evans
Self-Represented
MOTION ORDER
[2] After receiving the request, the Tribunal asked both parties to comment. We asked if they believed that this case should be adjourned, and if two months was an appropriate length of time. The Respondent was also permitted to provide supporting documents that demonstrate their medical need for an adjournment.
[3] The Respondent did not reply to the request and did not explain why they needed the case to be adjourned. To ensure a fair process, and to balance the Tribunal’s obligation to provide a timely process against the request for medical accommodation, the tribunal gave the Parties an additional opportunity to provide information to establish:
i. the existence and nature of a disability or medical issue;
ii. the medical and/or disability related need for accommodation;
iii. the connection between disability and the requested accommodation; and
iv. the absence of alternative forms of accommodation.
The tribunal also asked how a deferral of two months would allow Mr. Evans to participate in the process once the adjournment expires.
[4] Mr. Evans responded by sending messages about the substance of the parking dispute. For instance, he provided a video of snow removal equipment close to a vehicle. Mr. Evans did not provide any information to answer the question of whether the CAT should adjourn the case.
[5] Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 132 stated that they could not respond in detail to the request because Mr. Evans had not provided any additional information. They did however oppose the request to adjourn.
[6] Having reviewed the submissions, I have determined that this application should not be adjourned since the Respondent has not provided any information to support their request to adjourn.
[7] The motion to adjourn the case is denied.
|
|
|
Ian Darling |
|
|
Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal |
Released on: April 29, 2022