top of page
White Columns
< Back

Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 88 v. McKay - 2023 ONCAT 22 - 2023-02-10


CCC 88




In the case of Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 88 v. McKay, the applicant, CCC88, alleged that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by failing to ensure his emotional support dog wore a vest and provide documentation of the dog's registration. The tribunal found the rspondent did not comply with the agreement as he did not consistently have his dog wear a vest and did not provide documentation until November 2022. Therefore, the tribunal ordered the respondent to ensure the dog wears a vest on the common elements and found him to be in breach of provision no. 3. However, as the respondent had since provided the required documentation, no further order was made regarding it. The decision was made on February 10, 2023, by Stephen Roth, a member of the Condominium Authority Tribunal.


CAT Decisions - Decision
Compliance with Settlement Agreement


Quick Verdict/Lesson:

This case emphasizes the importance of upholding Settlement Agreements in condominium disputes. It illustrates that parties must diligently fulfill their obligations as specified in these agreements to prevent further legal action and the potential imposition of cost awards. It also highlights the significance of clarity and specificity in the terms of such agreements to avoid disputes over compliance.



This case involved an alleged breach of a Settlement Agreement between the Applicant, Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 88 (CCC88), and the Respondent. The Agreement included specific conditions regarding the Respondent's emotional support dog.

The primary issues revolved around whether the Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the Agreement, which required to wear an emotional support animal vest at all times while on the common elements, and to provide documentation confirming emotional support dog registration with the City of Ottawa.

The tribunal determined that the Respondent breached the Agreement by not ensuring wore the specified vest, and that he only provided proof of registration after the CAT application had commenced.

In terms of costs, the tribunal awarded the Applicant $750 for legal costs and $125 for the CAT filing fee, considering the Respondent's failure to comply with the Agreement and the efforts made by the Applicant to resolve the matter outside of the CAT proceeding.



When entering into a Settlement Agreement, all parties should thoroughly understand and commit to the agreed terms, as failing to comply may lead to further disputes and costs.

In condominium disputes, communication and efforts to resolve issues before resorting to legal proceedings can be beneficial. Parties should attempt to address concerns through dialogue, as this might prevent unnecessary legal costs.

Parties should promptly fulfill their obligations under a Settlement Agreement and keep evidence of compliance to avoid any disputes and additional legal expenses.

bottom of page