top of page
White Columns
< Back

Oommen v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 485 - 2024 ONCAT 36 - 2024-03-12


OPCC 485


Tue Mar 12 2024 04:00:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)


The Applicant requested the reopening of a case against Peel Condominium Corporation No. 485, which closed in Stage 1 - Negotiation due to inactivity. Despite acknowledging receipt of warnings about the case closure, the Applicant did not follow the required steps to move the case forward. Chair Ian Darling dismissed the motion, considering factors from Frey v. MacDonald and emphasizing adherence to the CAT Rules of Practice and the principle of finality.


CAT Decisions - Motion Order


In this instance, despite the Applicant's request to reopen the case and acknowledgment of receipt of warnings, the Tribunal dismissed the motion due to the Applicant's failure to follow required procedures and lack of a genuine intention to progress the case.


Cases may be closed if there is no activity within the CAT-ODR system for a specified period.
Requests to reopen a case must demonstrate a genuine intention to proceed and address factors such as the length of delay, prejudice to the other party, and the merits of the appeal.
Merely posting a message in the negotiation message center without following required steps may not suffice as a genuine intention to move the case forward.
Upholding the principles of fairness and finality is essential in determining whether to reopen a case.


Parties involved in CAT cases should ensure timely and proactive engagement within the CAT-ODR system to avoid cases being closed due to inactivity. Additionally, they should carefully consider and adhere to the procedures outlined in the CAT Rules of Practice to move the case forward effectively.

bottom of page