CAT Decisions

CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL

DATE: October 15, 2025
CASE: 2025-00649R

Citation: Paschos v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 3088, 2025 ONCAT 175

Order under section 1.41 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Member: Ian Darling, Chair

The Applicant, 
George Paschos 
Self-Represented 

The Respondent, 
Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 3088 

Submission Dates: September 25, 2025 to October 7, 2025

DISMISSAL ORDER

[1]       The Applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT). The CAT issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because the issues are outside of the CAT’s jurisdiction.

[2]       The Applicant filed a records case with the CAT. The Applicant disputes a $42.00 additional fee charged by the Respondent, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 3088 (TSCC 3088) for a Status Certificate, resulting in a total charge of $142.00, including taxes. He alleges that the amount charged exceeds the $100.00 maximum amount (including taxes) permitted under Section 18(4) of Ontario Regulation 48/01.

[3]       The CAT returned the application, explaining its jurisdiction is limited to record-related issues under section 55 of the Condominium Act. The Applicant was advised that the issues raised concerning the Status Certificate did not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and was given an opportunity to resubmit his application. 

[4]       The Applicant was unable to satisfy the CAT that the case was within its jurisdiction. The CAT issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the case because it can only consider record-related issues that fall within its jurisdiction. The scope of the Tribunal’s authority is set out in section 1 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of O. Reg. 179/17.

[5]       The Applicant expressed concern about the word limits the tribunal imposed on submissions. I understand the concerns but can also state that the Applicant was clear in establishing that the proposed fee is inconsistent with section 76 of the Act, and associated regulations.

[6]       The Respondent also responded to the Notice. They did not respond to the jurisdictional question but focused on justifying the “convenience fee”, and associated HST. Based on the submissions of the parties, it appears that if the Applicant requested a paper copy of the record, only the $100 charge would apply.

[7]       This Application is dismissed under Rule 19 of the Tribunal Rules because the CAT only has jurisdiction to deal with records-related disputes that fall under section 55 of the Act. The Status Certificates, and associated requirements are set out in section 76 of the Act.  

[8]       I find that the issues that make up this dispute are not within the jurisdiction of the CAT. Accordingly, I order that this case be dismissed. 

ORDER

1.         The Tribunal orders the Application dismissed.

Released on: October 15, 2025