Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Muskoka Condominium Corporation No. 5 v. Respondent 1 et al.
Corporation:
Date:
2024-09-05
Summary:
A dispute arose between a condominium corporation and a unit owner over her alleged failure to prevent excessive noise and nuisance, violating the condominium's by-laws. The Condominium Authority Tribunal of Ontario found that the condominium corporation failed to provide sufficient evidence to support these allegations.
Under:
Noise, Nuisance, By-Law Enforcement
Verdict:
The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the claims of by-law violation against the unit owner, as the evidence provided by the condo corporation was deemed insufficient. The decision underscores the importance of presenting clear and convincing evidence when asserting claims of by-law violations.
Takeaways:
- Condominium corporations must provide sufficient evidence when making allegations of by-law violations.
- Allegations of nuisance and noise disturbances require a clear and reasonable demonstration of the disturbance.
- The Condominium Authority Tribunal may not always rule in favor of the condo corporation if evidence is deemed insufficient.
Recommendations:
- Condominium corporations should ensure they have substantial evidence before making allegations of by-law violations.
- In cases of noise complaints or alleged nuisance, it would be beneficial to collect tangible evidence such as sound recordings, time logs, or witness statements.
- Condo boards and managers should familiarize themselves with the standard of proof required by the Tribunal to successfully enforce their by-laws.