CAT Decisions

CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL

DATE: June 24, 2025
CASE: 2025-00231R

Citation: Shen v. Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 24, 2025 ONCAT 106

Order under section 1.41 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Member: Ian Darling, Chair

The Applicant, 

Robert Shen 

Represented by Marc-Roger Gagne, Paralegal 
 

The Respondent, 
Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 24  

Submission Dates: May 26, 2025 to June 3, 2025

DISMISSAL ORDER

[1]       The Applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT). The Applicant owns a unit within Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 24 (OCSCC 24) (the Respondent). The Applicant alleges that the corporation has repeatedly and unlawfully demanded tenant information beyond what is required under the Condominium Act, 1998 (“the Act”); improperly enforced a restrictive definition of “family” in relation to the tenant; and placed unjustified liens against the Applicant based on excessive and unreasonable legal fees that were improperly charged by the corporation.

[2]       The Application was submitted under the CAT’s records jurisdiction. The Tribunal informed the Applicant that the issues raised in the application did not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. It was explained that the Tribunal can consider records related issues as set out under Ontario Regulation 179/17. The Applicant was advised that, before resubmitting his application, he must update the Problem Description to clearly identify a records issue which falls within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.  

[3]       The Applicant resubmitted the Application, but the issues remained unresolved. The CAT issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss this application under Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice. 

[4]       The CAT’s jurisdiction is established by the Act and the Ontario Regulation 179/17 (“O. Reg. 179/17”). They contain the specific wording of the CAT’s jurisdiction. The CAT does not have the legal authority to decide issues that are outside its jurisdiction. 

[5]       The Applicant responded to the Notice. While I accept that the information about tenants is stored in records, the Application makes it clear that the core of the dispute is how that information is collected and used. They did not address the limitations imposed by the CAT’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal recognizes that this dispute is important to the Applicant, and that it has an impact on the Applicant and tenants. It is however, not a dispute with respect to section 55 of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have the legal authority to accept the case.

[6]       The issues that make up this dispute are not within the jurisdiction of the CAT. 

ORDER

[7]       The Application is dismissed.

Released on: June 24, 2025