Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Arthur Pullan v Leeds Condominium Corporation No. 18 - 2020 ONCAT 15 - 2020-05-07
Corporation:
APLCC 18
Date:
2020-05-07
Summary:
In the case of Arthur Pullan v Leeds Condominium Corporation No. 18, the Respondent sought the early dismissal of the case, claiming that the Applicant was using the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) for improper purposes by making multiple requests for records. The Respondent argued that this was the fifth record request by the Applicant and alleged it was frivolous and vexatious. However, the CAT Member ruled that there was no abuse of the CAT process since the requests were for different records. The case involved a dispute over the Applicant's entitlement to certain records, which required further examination. The motion to dismiss was denied, allowing the case to proceed through the Tribunal process.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Verdict:
The motion to dismiss the case was denied because the Respondent's claim that the Applicant was acting frivolous and vexatious by making multiple record requests did not hold, as the requests were for different records and the case involved a genuine dispute over entitlement to those records. The CAT emphasized the need for evidence and submissions to determine entitlement, allowing the case to proceed through the Tribunal process.
Takeaways:
In the case of Arthur Pullan v Leeds Condominium Corporation No. 18, the Respondent sought the early dismissal of the case, alleging that the Applicant was using the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) for improper purposes by making multiple record requests.
The Respondent claimed that this was the fifth record request by the Applicant and that it constituted frivolous and vexatious behavior. However, the CAT Member ruled that submitting multiple requests for different records was not an abuse of the CAT process.
The case involved a dispute over the Applicant's entitlement to certain records, which required further examination, and there was no clear evidence that the case had no likelihood of success if it proceeded to the Tribunal Decision stage.
This was the first case between the parties before the CAT, and entitlement to the requested records had not been previously determined.
The motion to dismiss was denied, allowing the case to proceed through the Tribunal process, with the parties encouraged to engage in negotiations or mediation to resolve the dispute amicably.
Recommendations:
Encourage early communication and collaboration: To avoid unnecessary motions and disputes, recommend that both parties, in future cases, engage in early communication and collaboration to address concerns and potential record requests. This may prevent misunderstandings and tensions that can lead to motions for dismissal.
Clarify the criteria for early dismissal: It may be helpful to provide clearer guidelines and examples regarding the criteria for early dismissal under Rule 17.1 (c) of the CAT Rules of Practice. This would ensure that both parties have a better understanding of when a motion for dismissal is appropriate and when it is not.
Encourage alternative dispute resolution: Promote the use of alternative dispute resolution methods such as negotiation and mediation, as mentioned in the motion order. Encouraging parties to explore these options before proceeding to a Tribunal Decision stage can help resolve issues more amicably and efficiently. Providing information on how to access and utilize these methods can be beneficial.