Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Manorama Sennek & v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 116 - 2018 ONCAT 4 - 2018-06-19
Corporation:
MSCCC 116
Date:
2018-06-19
Summary:
In the case of Manorama Sennek v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 116 (2018 ONCAT 4), the Condominium Authority Tribunal addressed an application seeking a penalty for the alleged failure of the respondent to maintain a record over a 91-month period. The tribunal found that the application was vexatious, representing an attempt to continue a dispute already determined by the courts and brought for an improper purpose. The applicant's status as a vexatious litigant, as determined by the Ontario Superior Court, did not apply to the tribunal. Despite this, the tribunal dismissed the application without a hearing, concluding that it met the criteria for dismissal outlined in the Condominium Act.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Dismissal Order
Verdict:
In the case of Manorama Sennek v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 116, the Tribunal dismissed the application, determining it to be vexatious and brought for an improper purpose. The Applicant's attempt to continue a dispute already determined by the courts was found to lack a reasonable cause of action, leading to the dismissal of the case without a hearing.
Takeaways:
Vexatious Litigant Status: The case of Manorama Sennek v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 116 underscores the Tribunal's consideration of an applicant's vexatious litigant status. The applicant, having been declared a vexatious litigant by the Ontario Superior Court, sought a penalty from the Tribunal for the respondent's alleged failure to maintain a record over a 91-month period.
Tribunal's Dismissal Authority: The decision outlines the Tribunal's authority to dismiss an application without a hearing under Section 1.41 of the Condominium Act if it deems the subject matter frivolous, vexatious, not initiated in good faith, or disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
Continuation of Dispute: The Tribunal deems the application vexatious, considering it a continuation of a dispute already determined by the courts. The applicant's alternative approach is viewed as an attempt to circumvent the outcome of prior court proceedings.
Proper Purpose Requirement: The decision emphasizes the importance of assessing the purpose of an application, highlighting that seeking a penalty equivalent to incurred court costs may be indicative of an improper purpose.
Timing Significance: The timing of the application, closely following the Court of Appeal decision, is noted as significant in supporting a finding that the application was filed with an improper purpose.
Recommendations:
Enhance Tribunal Communication on Litigant Status:
Recommend that the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) establishes a mechanism for receiving and verifying information about litigant status from other legal forums, such as the Ontario Superior Court. This can help prevent situations where the CAT needs to determine the impact of a litigant's status without clear documentation. Establishing a streamlined process for obtaining and recognizing litigant status could improve efficiency and decision-making.
Educational Outreach on Tribunal Jurisdiction:
Encourage educational outreach programs to inform potential applicants about the jurisdiction of the Condominium Authority Tribunal. This outreach should include information on the types of disputes that fall within the Tribunal's purview and those that may be more appropriately addressed in other legal forums. Improved awareness can help prevent the filing of vexatious or improper applications, ensuring that the Tribunal's resources are used effectively.
Early Assessment of Applications for Vexatious Characteristics:
Suggest implementing an early assessment process by the CAT to identify applications that may have characteristics of being frivolous, vexatious, or brought for an improper purpose. This assessment could involve a preliminary review of the application to determine if there are signs of a continuing dispute or an attempt to circumvent previous legal outcomes. Such a proactive approach can lead to more efficient handling of cases and the preservation of Tribunal resources.