top of page
White Columns
< Back

Calderon v. York Condominium Corporation No. 274 - 2021 ONCAT 88 - 2021-09-28


CYCC 274




In the case of "Calderon v. York Condominium Corporation No. 274," the applicant sought an order for York Condominium Corporation No. 274 (YCC 274) to enforce compliance with its governing documents against owners of a vehicle in a specific parking spot. The vehicle owners were the president of YCC 274's board of directors and their spouse. The applicant alleged that the vehicle was leaking oil in violation of condominium rules, and YCC 274 had not taken appropriate enforcement action. YCC 274 attempted to have the case dismissed, arguing that the issue was minor and that the applicant was pursuing it for an improper purpose. The motion to dismiss was rejected, as the reasonableness of YCC 274's actions needed to be determined at a later stage. The case was allowed to proceed with guidelines to maintain a focus on the central issue


CAT Decisions - Motion Order


In the case of Calderon v. York Condominium Corporation No. 274, a motion to dismiss the application was rejected. The applicant sought enforcement of condominium rules against vehicle owners who had caused oil damage. The tribunal found that the reasonableness of the respondent's actions needed to be determined at a later stage, and the case was allowed to proceed. The applicant was cautioned against expanding the case beyond the tribunal's jurisdiction and to focus on the central issue. The motion to dismiss was not granted, and guidelines were set to maintain focus and relevance in the proceedings.

Lesson: Condominium boards have some discretion in enforcing rules, provided they act reasonably, and cases should not be dismissed prematurely. Parties should ensure their submissions and evidence remain relevant to the central issue of the case.


The case of Calderon v. York Condominium Corporation No. 274 revolves around a dispute regarding a vehicle in a condominium parking spot leaking oil, leading to a damage claim against the owners of the vehicle, who happen to be part of the condominium board.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's motion to dismiss the application, emphasizing that the reasonableness of the condominium board's actions in enforcing its rules would be central to a later hearing.

The case illustrates that condominium boards have a degree of discretion in enforcing their rules, but they must do so reasonably.

The applicant, who had filed multiple cases, was cautioned against using the process to cause distress to the corporation and reminded that all costs are ultimately borne by the owners.

The tribunal issued guidelines to keep the case focused on the central issue, ensuring that evidence and submissions remain relevant and within the tribunal's jurisdiction. Issues unrelated to the enforcement of rules would not be permitted.


Encourage the condominium corporation (or board) to ensure transparent and reasonable enforcement of governing documents and rules. It's crucial that the corporation's actions are not only compliant with rules but also reasonable and justifiable, as reasonableness is central to such disputes.

Consider the applicant's history of filing multiple cases carefully. In cases where an applicant has filed numerous cases, a thorough evaluation of each case is necessary to determine whether they are genuinely addressing legitimate concerns or potentially misusing the process to cause distress.

Establish clear guidelines and boundaries for each case to maintain focus and relevance to the central issue. The tribunal should ensure that cases do not expand into unrelated matters, which could complicate and prolong the proceedings. This will help in streamlining the process and reaching efficient resolutions.

bottom of page