Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Nicholaos Nassios v Grey Standard Condominium Corporation No. 46 - 2019 ONCAT 27 - 2019-08-07
Corporation:
NNGSCC 46
Date:
2019-08-07
Summary:
In this motion order, the applicant sought corrections and clarifications to a previous decision regarding his application for records from a condominium corporation. However, the Tribunal found that the requested changes were beyond the scope of typographical errors or minor clarifications allowed under Rule 30 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice. Therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to address the applicant's concerns, as the issues were more substantial than minor corrections. The motion was denied based on the jurisdictional limitations.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Verdict:
In this motion, the applicant sought corrections and clarifications to a previous decision regarding a condominium records dispute. The decision-maker found that the requested changes were beyond the scope of Rule 30, which allows for minor corrections, and that there was no other legal provision to grant the requested remedies. The lesson here is that jurisdiction and the nature of corrections allowed under specific rules should be carefully considered when seeking changes to a tribunal's decision.
Takeaways:
The motion involved a request for corrections and clarifications to a previous decision in a condominium records dispute.
The applicant sought to use Rule 30 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice to make these changes.
The Tribunal found that the corrections requested by the applicant were more substantial than typographical errors or minor clarifications and, therefore, were outside the scope of Rule 30.
The decision emphasized that the Tribunal's rulings are intended to be the final word on a matter, and disputes about the correctness of decisions should be pursued through other remedies.
Ultimately, the motion was denied based on the Tribunal's jurisdictional limitations, and the requested changes were not addressed.
Recommendations:
When requesting corrections or clarifications in a legal proceeding, ensure that the nature of the requested changes aligns with the jurisdiction and rules governing such requests. In this case, the applicant sought changes beyond the scope of Rule 30, which led to the denial of the motion.
Consider alternative avenues for addressing concerns about the accuracy of a tribunal's decision. If the requested changes are not permitted under the specific rules, explore other legal remedies or forums where such matters can be raised and addressed.
It's essential to carefully assess whether the issues raised warrant the time and effort required for correction. In cases where the requested changes are substantial and fall outside the prescribed scope, it may be more practical to pursue other legal options rather than seeking corrections within the current framework.