top of page
White Columns
< Back

Day v. Lambton Condominium Corporation No. 31 - 2023 ONCAT 41 - 2023-03-20






the case of Day v. Lambton Condominium Corporation No. 31 revolves around an allegation made by the applicant against Lambton Condominium Corporation No. 31. Applicant claims that the corporation failed to adhere to the terms of a Settlement Agreement made between the parties in June 2020. The Agreement stated that a designated person at Trademark would handle records requests, but Lambton Condominium Corporation No. 31 changed the procedure without consulting the applicant. During the hearing, evidence was presented showing that the designated contact person, Ashley Schmitchen, had left Trademark, and the board of the corporation decided to handle records requests themselves. The applicant argued that the change violated the terms of the Agreement. The decision concluded that the contract was frustrated as the essential terms, specifically the designated contact person no longer employed by Trademark, became incapable of being performed. The case revealed the importance of clarity and communication in contractual agreements.


CAT Decisions - Decision
Compliance with Settlement Agreement


In the case of Day v. Lambton Condominium Corporation No. 31, it was determined that Term 4 of the Settlement Agreement between the parties came to an end due to impossibility of performance after changes in the management company and the designated contact's employment status. The breach was considered de minimis, and no specific remedy was ordered, leaving the parties free to negotiate new terms. Costs were not awarded to either party. This case underscores the principle of impossibility of performance in contract law and the importance of promptly addressing issues with the other party in dispute resolution.


In the case of Day v. Lambton Condominium Corporation No. 31, the tribunal addressed allegations of non-compliance with a Settlement Agreement between the parties. Key takeaways from the decision include:

Impossibility of Performance: The tribunal determined that Term 4 of the Settlement Agreement became impossible to perform after changes in the management company and the designated contact's employment status. As a result, Term 4 came to an end, and the parties were not obligated to maintain the specific process outlined in the agreement.

De Minimis Breach: The tribunal considered the breach to be minor, and it aligned with the principle established in a previous case, Harrison, where minor breaches were addressed with a minimal remedy.

Severability: The decision highlighted that Term 4 of the Agreement was severable from the remaining terms, and while Term 4 ended, the rest of the Agreement remained in effect.

Cost Allocation: The tribunal did not award costs to either party, given the Applicant's failure to promptly raise the issue with the Respondent and the Respondent's failure to recognize the existence of the Agreement.

Opportunity for Negotiation: The parties were encouraged to negotiate new terms regarding records request processes, now that Term 4 had come to an end.

Overall, the decision underscores the importance of prompt communication between parties when issues arise and the tribunal's discretion in addressing minor breaches. It also highlights the principle of impossibility of performance and the severability of contract terms in such cases.


Open Communication and Clarification: In condominium disputes, open communication is vital. If any party believes there has been a change in procedures or any other aspect of their agreement, it's essential to promptly communicate and clarify the matter with the other party. In this case, the Applicant could have reached out to the Respondent to clarify the changes in the records request procedure, which might have resolved the issue without legal action.

Careful Review of Settlement Agreements: When entering into a settlement agreement, it's crucial for all parties to carefully review and understand the terms. Any ambiguities or concerns should be addressed before finalizing the agreement. In this case, it was not clear what should happen if the designated contact person became unavailable, and this led to a dispute. A well-drafted agreement should anticipate and address such scenarios.

Prompt Resolution of Disputes: If a party believes that the terms of an agreement have been violated, it's advisable to address the issue promptly with the other party. Delaying the resolution of disputes can lead to complications and may affect the outcome. Timely communication and collaboration can often lead to amicable resolutions without the need for legal action

bottom of page