top of page
White Columns
< Back


Jackson v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 69 - 2023 ONCAT 128 - 2023-09-08

Corporation:

JSCC 69

Date:

2023-09-08

Under:

CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Adequacy of Records
Entitlement to Records

Summary:

In the case of Jackson v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 69, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) issued a motion order on September 8, 2023. The dispute involved two record requests made by the Applicant to the Respondent, Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 69 (SCC 69), on September 8 and 9, 2022. The Respondent sought an adjournment of the CAT hearing, citing cross-referencing of materials between the CAT case and two related Small Claims cases, confusion, and costs. The Applicant opposed the motion, wanting the CAT case to proceed. The CAT denied the motion for adjournment, stating that the hearing should continue and resolve independently of the Small Claims cases.

Verdict:

In the case of Jackson v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 69, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) denied the Respondent's motion to adjourn the hearing, which was requested to await the outcome of two related cases at the Small Claims court. The CAT emphasized that its jurisdiction is specific to whether the Applicant is entitled to the requested records and their adequacy, and that the hearing should proceed as it will likely conclude before the Small Claims cases. The parties were cautioned against seeking documents through the CAT for improper litigation purposes, and the importance of focusing on the CAT's narrow jurisdiction was emphasized.

Takeaways:

In the case of Jackson v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 69, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) denied the Respondent's motion to adjourn the hearing pending the outcome of two related cases at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice - Small Claims. Here are the key takeaways from this decision:

The Respondent requested an adjournment of the CAT hearing, citing confusion and cost concerns due to cross-referencing material between the CAT case and the Small Claims cases. The Respondent argued that it is difficult to distinguish between the three cases.

The Applicant opposed the adjournment, expressing the need to proceed with the CAT case to obtain records for her Small Claims case, which involves defamation and loss of use and enjoyment of her unit.

The CAT emphasized that the case before them is specific to whether the Applicant is entitled to the requested records and their adequacy.

The CAT decided that the hearing should continue, as an indefinite adjournment was not in the best interest of the parties or the CAT's goal of efficient dispute resolution.

The CAT cautioned both parties against improper purposes and undue delays, reminding them of the CAT's jurisdiction's narrow scope and focus.

In summary, the CAT's decision prioritizes the efficient resolution of the CAT case and advises the parties to focus on the specific issues within its jurisdiction.

Recommendations: 

Further clarify jurisdiction: It seems that there is confusion regarding jurisdiction between the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) and the Small Claims court. It is recommended to consult with a legal professional to ensure a clear understanding of the jurisdiction and which requests should be pursued through the CAT and which should be pursued through Small Claims court.

Consider mediation: Both parties have mentioned the possibility of settlement or mediation. It may be beneficial to explore mediation as an alternative dispute resolution method before proceeding with the hearing. Mediation can help facilitate communication and potentially reach a mutually agreeable resolution, avoiding further costs and delays.

Review document requests: It is important for the Applicant to review and clarify the specific documents they are requesting from Simcoe Condominium Corporation No 69 in the CAT case. This will help ensure that the requested records are relevant and necessary for the CAT proceedings. It is also advisable to ensure that requesting these documents through the CAT case is not for an improper purpose, as this may have implications on the outcome and potential costs.

bottom of page