top of page
White Columns
< Back

Calderon v. York Condominium Corporation No. 274 - 2021 ONCAT 119 - 2021-12-14


CYCC 274




This case involved a unit owner in York Condominium Corporation No. 274 (YCC 274) seeking compliance enforcement by YCC 274 against vehicle owners who were board members. The case progressed through document disclosure, witness statements, and cross-examinations. However, the applicant requested to withdraw the case, citing various reasons including personal matters, family relocation, and reconsideration based on a prior Tribunal decision. The Respondent expressed concerns about similar cases and potential abuse of the Tribunal process. The Tribunal, while acknowledging the Respondent's concerns, granted the withdrawal request, emphasizing the Applicant's right to withdraw and the Tribunal's role in encouraging compliance with prior decisions. No costs were awarded to either party.


CAT Decisions - Motion Order


The Tribunal granted the withdrawal request of the applicant who sought compliance enforcement by York Condominium Corporation No. 274. The decision highlighted that an applicant's right to withdraw, even if similar cases are pending, should be respected, but it also cautioned parties against pursuing cases with improper motives. The respondent's request for costs was denied, emphasizing that costs are discretionary and should be considered on a case-by-case basis, while also reminding parties that pursuing litigation may have consequences.


Withdrawal Request: The case involved an applicant, Ney Calderon, seeking compliance enforcement by York Condominium Corporation No. 274 (YCC 274). During the proceedings, Mr. Calderon requested to withdraw his case citing reasons such as it being not worth his time and money, his property being for sale, and personal matters.

Analogous Cases: The Respondent expressed concerns about a similar case being pursued by another unit owner. However, the Tribunal granted the withdrawal request, emphasizing the applicant's right to withdraw, regardless of other cases, and encouraging parties to heed previous decisions.

Timing and Reason for Withdrawal: The Respondent raised concerns about the timing and accused Mr. Calderon of causing disruptions through multiple cases. The Tribunal noted that the withdrawal seemed influenced by a prior decision and personal circumstances.

Costs: The Respondent requested costs but was denied. The Tribunal clarified that costs are discretionary and should be considered based on the circumstances of the specific case.

Caution to Applicants: The Tribunal cautioned applicants against pursuing cases for improper purposes and reminded them that litigation may have consequences, including costs.


Clarity on Withdrawal Timing: To prevent disputes regarding the timing of withdrawal, it is advisable to establish specific guidelines within the rules or procedures, clearly stating when during the proceedings an applicant may request to withdraw a case without facing additional consequences. This could help parties make informed decisions and manage their resources efficiently.

Monitoring and Managing Multiple Cases: In situations where a single party initiates multiple cases against the same respondent, a mechanism to monitor and manage these cases effectively could be established. This could involve a review to ensure that the cases have merit and are not intended solely for causing disruption. This can help prevent unnecessary resource expenditures and repeated hearings on identical issues.

Transparent Costs Assessment: When it comes to awarding or denying costs to parties, the tribunal should provide transparent guidelines and considerations that it takes into account. Having clear criteria for awarding costs would help parties better understand the circumstances under which costs might be awarded and allow for a more predictable process. This could also reduce concerns about costs being perceived as arbitrary or unfair.

bottom of page