top of page
White Columns
< Back

Greasley v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 55 - 2021 ONCAT 43 - 2021-05-13

Corporation:

GPCC 55

Date:

2021-05-13

Under:

CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Fees, Costs, Penalties

Summary:

This case, Greasley v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 55, involves a correction motion submitted by the Applicant seeking to correct or clarify a previous decision by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal, in its motion order, concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to make the requested corrections or clarifications as they were not typographical errors but rather substantial changes that would alter the findings of the original decision. The motion was denied based on Rule 43 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, which does not permit substantive changes to the Tribunal's orders or decisions.

Verdict:

In Greasley v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 55 (2021 ONCAT 43), the Correction Motion filed by the Applicant was denied. The motion sought to make substantial changes to a previous decision, including correcting statements and requesting reimbursement of legal expenses. The Tribunal clarified that it does not have jurisdiction to make substantive changes to its decisions, emphasizing the finality of its rulings. This case underscores the limited scope of correction motions and the need to seek remedies for substantial changes through other legal channels.

Takeaways:

Correction Motion Denied: In this case, the Tribunal issued a motion order to deny a correction motion filed by the Applicant regarding a previous decision. The correction motion aimed to make substantial changes to the findings of the original decision.

Jurisdiction Limitation: The Tribunal clarified that it does not have jurisdiction to make substantive changes to its orders or decisions, and Rule 43 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice only allows for the correction of typographical errors or minor changes to clarify wording.

Finality of Tribunal Decisions: The Tribunal emphasized that its decisions are intended to be the final word on a matter after careful consideration of evidence and law, and remedies for challenging decisions should be sought in other forums.

Importance of Correcting Errors: While Rule 43 permits corrections for minor errors, requests for substantive changes should be addressed in the appropriate legal processes.

Decision Impact: This decision serves as a reminder of the limits of correction motions and the need to carefully consider the jurisdiction and scope of such requests in legal proceedings.

Recommendations: 

Understanding Corrective Jurisdiction: Parties should understand that the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) has limited jurisdiction for corrections. Rule 43 is designed to address typographical or minor errors, not substantive changes to the Tribunal's decisions.

Seeking Legal Remedies: If a party believes that a CAT decision is incorrect or that substantive changes are needed, they should pursue legal remedies through other forums or appeal processes. The CAT's role is to address specific types of errors and minor clarifications.

Comprehending the Finality of CAT Decisions: Parties should recognize that CAT decisions are intended to be the final word on a matter within the CAT's scope. Seeking substantial changes or corrections to findings in a CAT decision should be done through other legal channels. Understanding the CAT's role and jurisdiction is crucial when considering corrective motions.

bottom of page