top of page
White Columns
< Back

Nicholaos Nassios v Grey Standard Condominium Corporation No. 46 - 2019 ONCAT 30 - 2019-08-20

Corporation:

NNGSCC 46

Date:

2019-08-20

Under:

CAT Decisions - Motion Order

Summary:

In this case, the Tribunal addressed a motion for correction and clarification of a previous decision. The original decision, a Dismissal Order, was based on the Applicant's loss of standing due to selling his condominium unit. The Applicant brought a motion for correction and clarification, asserting misrepresentations and inaccuracies in the previous decision. However, the Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to make the requested changes, as they were beyond the scope of minor corrections permitted under Rule 30 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice. The Applicant also requested that any corrections be made before the Dismissal Order was posted online, but the order had already been published on CanLII, rendering the matter moot.

Verdict:

In this case, the Tribunal reaffirmed its lack of jurisdiction to make substantive corrections or clarifications beyond the scope of Rule 30 under the Tribunal's Rules of Practice. It emphasized that questions of jurisdiction are not discretionary and, in this case, acted as a legal barrier to addressing the applicant's requests for corrections after the original order had been posted online. Therefore, the motion for correction was denied. This case underscores the importance of adhering to established rules and jurisdictional boundaries in legal proceedings.




Takeaways:

In this case, the Tribunal addressed a motion for correction and clarification of a previous decision, a Dismissal Order.

The original Dismissal Order was based on the Applicant losing his standing to request records due to the sale of his condominium unit.

The Applicant brought a motion to correct or clarify the initial decision under Rule 30 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, which allows minor corrections or clarifications. However, the Tribunal ruled that these proposed changes were more substantive and thus beyond its jurisdiction under Rule 30.

The Applicant also requested the Tribunal's assistance in correcting perceived inaccuracies and misrepresentations, which the Tribunal reiterated was beyond its jurisdiction.

The matter became moot since the Dismissal Order had already been posted online, and the Tribunal ultimately denied the motion.

Recommendations: 

Understanding Jurisdiction: It's essential for all parties involved in legal proceedings to have a clear understanding of the jurisdiction of the tribunal or court handling their case. Knowing the limits of what can be addressed through motions and corrections is crucial to avoid filing motions that may fall outside the tribunal's authority.

Timeliness in Legal Proceedings: When seeking corrections or clarifications in legal decisions, it's important to act promptly. In this case, the applicant requested corrections before the decision was posted online, emphasizing the significance of addressing such issues in a timely manner.

Legal Consultation: When navigating legal processes, especially if you're not represented by legal counsel, consider seeking legal advice or consultation to ensure you follow the correct procedures and understand the jurisdictional boundaries, ultimately saving time and effort in pursuing corrections or clarifications.

bottom of page