Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Kong v. Toronto Standard Condominium No. 1959 - 2021 ONCAT 109 - 2021-11-15
Corporation:
KTSC 1959
Date:
2021-11-15
Summary:
In the case of Kong v. Toronto Standard Condominium No. 1959, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) addressed the issue of costs in an unusual and complex dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1959, along with an Intervenor, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1862. The case involved matters related to electric vehicle charging and parking restrictions. The Tribunal found that the Respondent and the Intervenor could claim legal costs due to Ms. Kong's conduct, including delays and unresponsiveness, but only to a limited extent. Additionally, it was established that the costs could be added to the common expenses of the applicant's unit. Furthermore, a disbursement was divided among the parties involved.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Decision
Indemnification or Compensation
Vehicles
Verdict:
In the case of Kong v. Toronto Standard Condominium No. 1959, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) considered a motion for costs following a dispute involving a unit owner's request to charge an electric vehicle in the visitor parking area. The tribunal awarded partial legal costs to the condominium corporations due to the applicant's conduct and refusal to follow instructions during the hearing, as well as costs for time wasted when the applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing. The tribunal allowed the legal costs to be added to the common expenses of the applicant's unit, but it did not grant the same for a third party (TSCC1862) involved in the case.
Takeaways:
Background of the Case: This case involved a dispute between the Applicant who is a unit owner in Toronto Standard Condominium No. 1959 (TSCC1959), and the Respondent, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1959, and Intervenor, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1862, regarding the applicant's request to charge her electric vehicle in the visitor parking area, which was shared between the two condominium corporations.
Dismissal and Appeal: The case originally began in December 2020 but was dismissed by the decision-maker in March 2021 due to the expiration of the statutory limitation period. However, on appeal to the Divisional Court, the dismissal decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a determination on the remaining issues without reference to the limitation period.
Issue of Costs: After a hearing on the merits, both TSCC1959 and TSCC1862 requested costs associated with the proceedings, primarily legal fees. The decision-maker, Laurie Sanford, evaluated the reasons for awarding costs and disbursements in the case.
Costs Awarded: The decision-maker found that costs were justified due to Ms. Kong's conduct during the proceedings, particularly her refusal to follow directions and her non-attendance on one of the hearing dates. TSCC1959 was awarded $1,275 for legal fees and $357.54 for disbursements. TSCC1862 was awarded $720 for legal fees. Furthermore, TSCC1959 was allowed to add these amounts to Ms. Kong's common expenses if they remained unpaid.
Jurisdictional Consideration: The decision-maker clarified the jurisdictional aspects related to the enforcement of costs and the limitations in adding amounts to common expenses under the Condominium Act, 1998. While costs could be added to common expenses in certain cases, the ruling established that TSCC1959 could not add TSCC1862's costs to the applicant's common expenses.
Recommendations:
Review Tribunal Rules and Procedures: Given the complexity and uniqueness of this case, it's essential for the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) to review and potentially revise its rules and procedures. The case illustrates some challenges faced by self-represented parties and the need for clear guidance on what is expected of all participants. The CAT should consider providing more detailed instructions and possibly even additional support for self-represented individuals to ensure a fair and efficient dispute resolution process.
Educational Outreach: The CAT should invest in educational outreach programs and materials to help parties, particularly self-represented ones, better understand the tribunal process and their responsibilities during hearings. Workshops, webinars, or written guides can be created to make the process less intimidating and more accessible.
Clearer Jurisdictional Guidelines: To prevent similar situations where parties may not know whether a case falls under the CAT's jurisdiction, the tribunal should provide clear and specific guidelines on the types of cases that are suitable for their venue. This could involve creating a decision tree or questionnaire to help parties determine if their dispute is within the CAT's purview.