CAT Decisions

CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL

DATE: December 21, 2023
CASE: 2023-00623N

Citation: Manor v. Prades, 2023 ONCAT 199

Order under section 1.41 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Member: Ian Darling, Chair

The Applicant,
Paul Manor
Self-Represented

The Respondent,
Patrick Prades

The Intervenor,
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1031

Submission Dates: December 7, 2023 to December 14, 2023

DISMISSAL ORDER

[1]       This order explains the reasons for dismissing this Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) application under Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice.

[2]       This application states that the Respondent is growing a tree in a manner that constitutes a nuisance, annoyance or disruption affecting the Applicant’s use of their terrace.

[3]       The application identifies Patrick Prades as the Respondent and Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1031 (“MTCC 1031”) as an Intervenor. The Applicant is an Owner of a unit in MTCC 1031. The Respondent is an owner in a different condominium corporation located in close proximity to the Applicant.

[4]       The CAT informed the Applicant that, as per Section 1.36 (2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”), the CAT cannot accept applications regarding disputes involving condominium corporations where the applicant is not an owner or between unit owners of other condominium corporations – stating:

[…] an owner or a mortgagee of a unit may apply to the Tribunal for the resolution of a prescribed dispute with the corporation, another owner or an occupier or a mortgagee of a unit.

[5]       The Applicant replied that the application should be accepted because these condominium corporations are attached to one another, have shared-facilities and have the same management company; therefore, both corporations should be required to observe the rules and regulations.

[6]       The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application, and provided the Applicant with an opportunity to respond. The Applicant did not respond.

[7]       Even if I accept the Applicant’s assertion that the corporations are attached to one another through a shared-facilities relationship, the Act does not provide a mechanism for an owner to bring a case against an owner in a different condominum corporation. Accordingly, I order that this case be dismissed.

ORDER

[8]       The application is dismissed.

Released on: December 21, 2023