Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Di Domenico v. Halton Condominium Corporation No. 118 - 2023 ONCAT 67 - 2023-05-08
Corporation:
DDHCC 118
Date:
2023-05-08
Summary:
In the case of Di Domenico v. Halton Condominium Corporation No. 118, 2023 ONCAT 67, the applicant filed a complaint against Halton Condominium Corporation No. 118 (HCC 118) regarding disruptive noise from water rushing through her unit's pipes, which she considered a nuisance. HCC 118 argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the application, suggesting that the noise issue related to their obligations under sections 89 and 90 of the Condominium Act, 1998. The Tribunal found that the jurisdiction lay under subsection 117(2) of the Act, which deals with noise-related nuisances caused by a person's activities. As neither party could identify a source of the noise other than the aging plumbing system of HCC 118, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Costs were not awarded to either party due to the extended hearing duration. The issue of limiting potential damages under the Limitations Act, 2002 was not addressed.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Noise
Procedural Issue with Governing Documents
Verdict:
In the case of Di Domenico v. Halton Condominium Corporation No. 118, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the applicant's claim related to a noise issue in her unit. The key lesson from this case is that the CAT clarified its jurisdiction, emphasizing that it can only address disputes related to subsection 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, pertaining to nuisances caused by activities of individuals in units and not disputes involving a condominium corporation's repair and maintenance obligations under sections 89 and 90 of the Act. Additionally, the CAT may dismiss applications at any time if they fall outside its legal jurisdiction, even if raised late in the proceedings.
Takeaways:
In the case of Di Domenico v. Halton Condominium Corporation No. 118, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) issued a motion order dismissing the application brought by the applicant. The key takeaways from this decision are:
The applicant had complained of disruptive noise caused by water rushing through the water pipes in her condominium unit, which she deemed a nuisance.
The CAT found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application as the noise issue was most likely related to the condominium corporation's obligations under sections 89 and 90 of the Condominium Act, 1998, pertaining to repair and maintenance of the building's common elements.
The jurisdiction of the CAT is determined by the Condominium Act and regulations, and it does not extend to matters related to repair and maintenance obligations of the condominium corporation.
The CAT has the authority to dismiss applications at any time when it lacks the legal power to hear or decide the issues.
In this case, the application was dismissed, and no order for costs was made, considering the circumstances of the extended hearing.
The CAT emphasized the importance of determining jurisdiction and the potential costs involved in the proceedings, urging parties to address these issues in a timely manner to avoid unnecessary expenses and delays.
Recommendations:
Early Consideration of Jurisdiction: Parties involved in condominium disputes should consider the jurisdiction of the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) and the specific provisions of the Condominium Act, 1998 and related regulations that govern their dispute. It is important to recognize the jurisdictional boundaries of the CAT and other relevant authorities. If there are any doubts about the tribunal's jurisdiction, these concerns should be raised at the earliest stage of the proceedings to avoid unnecessary delays and expenses.
Clear Framing of Issues: Parties should be clear and consistent in framing the issues and grounds of their applications. In this case, the applicant initially presented her complaint as a noise nuisance under subsection 117(2) of the Act and subsequently shifted to framing the issue as the condominium corporation's failure to meet its obligations under sections 89 and 90 of the Act. Clear and consistent framing of the issues can help prevent jurisdictional disputes and streamline the proceedings.
Costs and Timely Jurisdictional Concerns: The CAT's rules allow for the dismissal of applications if the tribunal lacks jurisdiction. Parties should be aware of these rules and act promptly when jurisdictional concerns arise. While it is the tribunal's discretion to order costs, parties should be cautious about raising jurisdictional issues late in the proceedings, which can lead to additional expenses for the opposing party. It is advisable to address jurisdictional matters as early as possible to avoid unnecessary delays and costs.