Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Lajeunesse v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 726 et al. - 2022 ONCAT 140 - 2022-12-07
Corporation:
LMTCC 726
Date:
2022-12-07
Summary:
In the case of Lajeunesse v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 726 et al., the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) made a motion order to remove the "Occupant" as a party from the case. The Applicants initially identified an unknown occupier ("Occupant") in their dispute, but the respondent requested the CAT to remove "Occupant" from the case. The CAT considered whether the respondent qualified as an "occupier" as defined in the Condominium Act, which allows occupants to be named respondents in a case. The CAT found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the respondent met the criteria of an "occupier" under the Act. Consequently, the CAT granted the motion to remove "Occupant" as a Respondent in the case.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Verdict:
In the case of Lajeunesse v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 726 et al., the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) ruled that the respondent should be removed as an occupant from the case. This decision was based on the lack of evidence demonstrating that the respondent had sufficient possession or control of the unit to be considered an "occupier" as defined in the Condominium Act. Therefore, Simmy Leung was not named as a party in the case.
Takeaways:
Takeaways:
Accurate identification of parties is crucial in legal proceedings.
The definition of an "occupier" is a critical consideration in condominium-related disputes.
Evidence of an individual's control and possession of property is essential in determining their status as an "occupier."
CAT rulings focus on procedural matters, not the determination of responsibility for nuisances or disputes.
Resolving disputes efficiently and according to relevant legal definitions is essential in condominium cases.
Recommendations:
The Applicants should proceed with the case, focusing on the remaining named Respondents, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 726, and Chau Lin Leung Chan.
The Applicants may want to gather additional evidence regarding the noise issue and any potential responsibilities of the remaining named Respondents.
It would be advisable for the Applicants to consult with legal counsel to ensure they are properly prepared for the case and understand their rights and options moving forward.