Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Joury v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1163 - 2022 ONCAT 135 - 2022-11-30
Corporation:
JMTCC 1163
Date:
2022-11-30
Summary:
In the case of Joury v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1163, the owner of a penthouse unit alleged that the telecommunications antennae on the building's roof constituted a nuisance, annoyance, and disruption, interfering with her use and enjoyment of her unit. She sought an order to have the antennae moved or removed, along with costs and a penalty. However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the antennae did not unreasonably interfere with her use or enjoyment of the unit. The Tribunal clarified that the interference must be substantial and unreasonable to be considered a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption. It also rejected the request for a penalty and awarded no costs to either party.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Decision
Indemnification or Compensation
Other Type of Nuisance, Annoyance or Disruption
Verdict:
In the case of Joury v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1163, the owner of a penthouse unit alleged that telecommunications antennae on the building's roof were a nuisance, annoyance, and disruption, interfering with her unit's use and enjoyment. However, the tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the antennae did not constitute a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption, and that the rules mentioned by the applicant did not apply to the condominium corporation. The tribunal also ruled against awarding any costs to either party. The case illustrates the importance of providing clear evidence of unreasonable interference when making such claims in a condominium setting.
Takeaways:
Takeaways:
Interference must be substantial and unreasonable to constitute a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption.
Loss of enjoyment of a view does not necessarily constitute a nuisance.
The Tribunal will not award costs unless there is unreasonable conduct or improper purpose.
Health and safety concerns may fall outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
An application to the Tribunal can be made without incurring costs, even if it is ultimately unsuccessful.
Recommendations:
Based on the case of Joury v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1163, here are some recommendations for individuals dealing with issues related to nuisances or disputes in a condominium setting:
Understand the Condominium's Governing Documents: Before pursuing a dispute, thoroughly review the condominium's governing documents, including the declaration, bylaws, and rules. These documents define the rights and responsibilities of unit owners and the corporation.
Consult with Legal Counsel: When facing a dispute with the condominium corporation, consider seeking legal counsel or advice from experts who specialize in condominium law. They can help you understand your rights and navigate the legal process.
Document and Communicate Concerns: Keep detailed records of your concerns and attempts to address the issue with the condominium corporation. Communicate your concerns in writing, keeping copies of all correspondence. This documentation can be valuable evidence if the matter escalates.
Understand the Jurisdiction: Be aware of the jurisdiction of the condominium authority or tribunal in your jurisdiction. Not all disputes may fall within their purview, and it's essential to understand which issues are actionable through these channels.
Attempt Mediation or Alternative Dispute Resolution: Before escalating a dispute to a formal tribunal or court, consider engaging in mediation or alternative dispute resolution methods. These approaches can often lead to faster and less costly resolutions.