Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Lawson v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2714 - 2023 ONCAT 50 - 2023-03-24
Corporation:
LTSCC 2714
Date:
2023-03-24
Summary:
In the case of Lawson v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2714, the applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) regarding a records dispute with the condominium corporation. After reviewing the issues and examining the documents, the CAT proposed to dismiss the application. The core issues involved condominium governance, the Tarion Warranty Program, the removal of certain documents, communication protocols, and confidentiality issues. The CAT concluded that the applicant had received the requested board and Annual General Meeting (AGM) minutes. Furthermore, the respondent highlighted that the applicant had not participated in the process, failed to provide further details or respond to responses, and continued to escalate issues with various parties. Therefore, the CAT ordered the dismissal of the case.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Dismissal Order
Access to Records
Entitlement to Records
Verdict:
In the case of Lawson v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2714, the applicant filed an application regarding access to certain condominium records. However, after a review, it was determined that many of the core issues in the dispute fell outside the jurisdiction of the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT). The applicant did not actively participate in the mediation process, and the case was ultimately dismissed for lack of genuine effort and good faith, as well as issues being beyond the CAT's jurisdiction.
Takeaways:
Key takeaways from the case of Lawson v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2714 (2023 ONCAT 50) are as follows:
1. The case involved a dispute related to access to condominium records, but it evolved to cover broader issues, including condominium governance, the Tarion Warranty Program, and communication protocols with various parties.
2. The CAT (Condominium Authority Tribunal) has the authority to dismiss applications that it deems outside its legal jurisdiction. In this case, it was found that certain aspects of the dispute fell beyond the CAT's jurisdiction.
3. The Applicant was required to make a genuine effort and act in good faith during mediation proceedings, in line with CAT Rules of Practice. The Applicant's failure to participate actively in the mediation process, along with missed deadlines and communication outside the platform, led to concerns about the genuineness of her claims.
4. The CAT ultimately decided to dismiss the case as the Applicant did not provide any further justification to keep it open, and she continually sought to revisit resolved issues with various parties.
5. This case highlights the importance of adhering to CAT procedures and making a genuine effort in mediation proceedings to resolve disputes effectively.
Recommendations:
Participate Actively and in Good Faith: Parties involved in condominium dispute cases should actively participate in the dispute resolution process and maintain good faith throughout the proceedings. This includes adhering to timelines, following communication protocols, and engaging on the designated platform for the case. Failure to participate in good faith may lead to adverse decisions or the dismissal of the case.
Seek Legal Advice When Necessary: In complex condominium disputes, it may be advisable for parties to seek legal advice to ensure they fully understand the jurisdiction of the Condominium Authority Tribunal and the appropriateness of the issues they bring forward. Legal guidance can help parties navigate the dispute resolution process effectively and avoid pursuing issues that fall outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Use the Appropriate Communication Channels: Parties should use the designated communication channels and platform provided by the tribunal for discussions related to their case. Continuously engaging with CAT staff or other parties outside of the prescribed channels, especially when issues have been addressed, can lead to inefficiencies and may be considered an abuse of the process.