Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Richards v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 27 - 2023 ONCAT 132 - 2023-09-15
Corporation:
RPCC 27
Date:
2023-09-15
Summary:
In the case of Richards v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 27, a motion order was issued by the Condominium Authority Tribunal. The Applicant, had filed an application regarding a dispute related to her request for records from the Respondent, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 27. She alleged that she did not receive all the records she requested and that the Respondent did not respond to her request adequately, which led her to seek remedies, including a penalty and costs. However, the Respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application on the grounds that it was out of time, citing a statutory limitation period. The Applicant argued that her application was timely and within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Access to Records
Verdict:
The Tribunal dismissed the motion brought by the Respondent in Richards v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 27, asserting that the application was out of time. The key lesson is that the statutory limitation period was not applicable in this case, and the Applicant's request for records was timely, demonstrating the importance of adhering to specific legal timelines and procedures in such cases. Additionally, the issue of whether to impose a penalty on the Respondent was deferred until the final order, illustrating the sequential nature of legal proceedings.
Takeaways:
In the case of Richards v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 27, the Applicant filed an application regarding access to records, claiming inadequate response and records from the Respondent.
The Respondent attempted to have the application dismissed, arguing that it was filed out of time based on a statutory limitation period and that the requested remedy was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
The Tribunal, through Member Dawn Wickett, ruled that the application was not out of time as it related to the Applicant's request for records in April 2023 and the Respondent's compliance with regulations, not events from May 2018.
The issue of whether a penalty was warranted against the Respondent would be considered at a later stage in the proceedings, highlighting the importance of jurisdiction and remedies in legal matters.
This case underscores the significance of timely filing, statutory limitations, and the distinction between issues at the motion stage and the final hearing.
Recommendations:
Continue the Proceedings: Since the motion to dismiss the application was dismissed, the proceedings should continue to address the issues raised by the Applicant regarding her request for condominium records and the Respondent's compliance with the Condominium Act and Ontario Regulation 48/01. The Tribunal should schedule a hearing to allow both parties to present their arguments and evidence related to the request for records and any potential remedies.
Clarify the Jurisdiction: The Tribunal should provide further clarification on its jurisdiction to impose a penalty on the Respondent. The final order should specify under what conditions the Tribunal can consider a penalty, and whether it is applicable in this case. The Tribunal should ensure that all parties understand the scope of its authority regarding penalties for non-compliance with the Condominium Act and regulations.
Set a Timetable: The Tribunal should establish a clear timetable for the remaining proceedings, including deadlines for the submission of evidence, witness statements, and any additional motions. This will help ensure an efficient and timely resolution of the dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent. Parties should be provided with clear guidance on the next steps in the proceedings.