Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Chakravarty v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 795 et al. - 2023 ONCAT 83 - 2023-06-20
Corporation:
CMTCC 795
Date:
2023-06-20
Summary:
In the case of Chakravarty v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 795 et al., 2023 ONCAT 83, the Condominium Authority Tribunal dealt with a motion to dismiss an application brought by the applicant against the Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 795 (MTCC 795) and the respondent. The decision was made by Member Laurie Sanford. The case revolved around issues related to indemnification or compensation, nuisances, annoyance, and procedural problems with governing documents
Under:
CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Indemnification or Compensation
Other Type of Nuisance, Annoyance or Disruption
Procedural Issue with Governing Documents
Reasonableness and/or Consistency of Governing Documents
Verdict:
The quick verdict in this case is that the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) lacks jurisdiction to hear the applicant's claim due to the absence of provisions related to harassment in the condominium corporation's governing documents. The lesson from this case is that it is crucial to understand the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the relevance of governing documents when bringing forth a dispute related to nuisance, annoyance, or harassment in a condominium setting.
Takeaways:
here are the key takeaways from the case "Chakravarty v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 795":
Jurisdiction: The Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application. The applicant claimed harassment and nuisance by the condominium corporation, but the Tribunal found that the alleged conduct did not fall within the defined scope of nuisance, annoyance, or disruption under the Condominium Act and its regulations.
Relevance of Governing Documents: The CAT emphasized that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to disputes arising from the provisions of a condominium corporation's governing documents. Policies or rules that are not part of the official governing documents may not be recognized or enforceable in the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Distinction between Harassment and Nuisance: The Tribunal highlighted the distinction between harassment and nuisance, stating that although there may be some overlap, they are separate concepts. Harassment can include nuisance, but it can also extend to physical intimidation or threats.
Evidence and Testimony: The CAT considered the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by both parties but focused only on the submissions and evidence relevant to the specific issues in the motion.
Recommendations:
Seek Legal Advice: The applicant should consider consulting with a legal professional to understand their options and potentially pursue their claims through a different legal avenue, if applicable. A lawyer with expertise in condominium law can provide guidance on how to address the issues raised in the case.
Review Governing Documents: The applicant should review the condominium corporation's governing documents, including the Declaration, By-Laws, and Rules, to ensure a clear understanding of the rules and regulations governing the property. Understanding these documents may help in addressing any legitimate concerns or disputes in the future.
Open Communication: If the issues mentioned in the case involve disputes with neighbors or the condominium board, it is advisable to engage in open and respectful communication to try and resolve the conflicts amicably. Discussing concerns and potential solutions with the other parties involved may help prevent further disputes and create a more harmonious living environment.