top of page
White Columns
< Back

Harder v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 905 - 2023 ONCAT 73 - 2023-05-31

Corporation:

HMTCC 905

Date:

2023-05-31

Under:

CAT Decisions - Decision
Compliance with Settlement Agreement

Summary:

Harder v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No 905, was brought before the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) in Ontario. The case involves a dispute between the applicant and owner of a unit, and Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No 905 (MTCC 905), the respondent. The dispute centers around the alleged breach of a settlement agreement between the parties, specifically regarding the response to requests for records and the manner of public communication. The CAT member, Mary Ann Spencer, delivered a written decision on May 31, 2023, finding that MTCC 905 did breach the settlement agreement in regards to the response to requests for records.

Verdict:

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 905 (MTCC 905) breached a settlement agreement by failing to provide certain statements when responding to a request for records. The tribunal ordered MTCC 905 to provide the required statements to the applicant and did not award any costs to either party. The tribunal clarified its jurisdiction and explained that it cannot make findings or issue orders related to matters outside its jurisdiction, such as public disparagement in a public forum, even if included in a settlement agreement.




Takeaways:

Key Takeaways from the case "Harder v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 905, 2023 ONCAT 73":

Background: The Applicant filed a complaint against Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 905 (MTCC 905) alleging breaches of a settlement agreement they had previously reached. The alleged breaches related to MTCC 905's response to requests for records and public communication about the applicant

Breached Terms: The Tribunal found that MTCC 905 breached paragraph 2 of the settlement agreement concerning its response to requests for records. They failed to provide necessary statements about record redactions and the actual cost incurred.

Jurisdiction: The Tribunal clarified its jurisdiction, emphasizing that it could only address issues within its jurisdiction under the Condominium Act. It couldn't rule on alleged breaches of the settlement agreement related to disparagement in public forums.

Remedies: In response to the breach of paragraph 2, the Tribunal ordered MTCC 905 to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement and provide the missing statements. However, no penalties or damages were awarded. The applicant request for damages related to disparagement was not considered due to jurisdictional limitations.

Costs: The Tribunal did not award the applicant the filing fees, and no costs were awarded to MTCC 905.

This case illustrates the importance of understanding the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the need to address issues within that scope when forming settlement agreements.

Recommendations: 

Properly comply with the settlement agreement: It's important for MTCC 905 to ensure that they are fully compliant with the terms of the settlement agreement. This includes providing accurate statements on the records requested by Karen Harder, as well as refraining from any disparaging or negative comments about her on public platforms.

Maintain effective communication: Effective communication between parties can help prevent misunderstandings or breaches of agreements. MTCC 905 could consider improving their communication with Karen Harder by promptly responding to her requests for information, and providing clear explanations for any decision they make.

Explore alternative dispute resolution methods: Given the nature of this dispute, MTCC 905 may want to consider alternative methods besides a tribunal to resolve any future disputes. These could include mediation or arbitration. By engaging in dialogue with Karen Harder, the parties may have a better chance of resolving disputes amicably without the need for legal intervention.

bottom of page