top of page
White Columns
< Back

Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 718 v. Bai - 2023 ONCAT 170 - 2023-10-11

Corporation:

PSCC 718

Date:

2023-10-11

Under:

CAT Decisions - Decision
Indemnification or Compensation
Parking and Storage

Summary:

In the case of Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 718 v. Bai, 2023 ONCAT 170, the Condominium Authority Tribunal ruled on an application filed by the condominium corporation against the respondent. The dispute involved a derelict vehicle left in a parking unit, causing damage to the asphalt surface. The tribunal denied the claim for damages, stating insufficient evidence of harm caused by the vehicle. However, it allowed compensation for pre-CAT legal expenses ($1,215.95) and 75% of the claimed costs ($2,645.89) incurred by the corporation in the proceedings. The decision emphasizes the distinction between pre-CAT expenses for compliance and costs associated with the CAT application.

Verdict:

In the case of Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 718 v. Bai, the Condominium Authority Tribunal, represented by Member Roger Bilodeau, has denied the Corporation's claim for damages to the asphalt parking surface but allowed its claim for pre-CAT expenses of $1,215.95 and costs of $2,645.89. The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to support the claimed damages, but acknowledged the Corporation's reasonable pre-CAT legal expenses and costs associated with the application, directing the respondent to pay the specified amounts within 30 days.

Takeaways:

Derelict Vehicle Removal: Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 718 successfully obtained an order from the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) for the removal of a derelict vehicle left unattended by the owner, the respondent, in violation of the Condominium Act, 1998, and the Corporation’s governing documents. The issue was resolved through a written online hearing.

Compensation and Costs: While the Corporation's claim for damages to the asphalt parking surface was denied, it was awarded compensation for pre-CAT legal expenses incurred in enforcing compliance. The Tribunal ordered Mr. Bai to pay $1,215.95 for these expenses. Additionally, the respondent was directed to pay $2,645.89 in costs, including Tribunal filing fees, to the Corporation.

Reasonable Legal Fees: The Tribunal found the legal fees claimed by the Corporation, primarily incurred by a paralegal, to be reasonable, considering the circumstances of the case.

Timely Resolution: The case highlights the importance of timely compliance, as the respondent, upon joining the case, promptly agreed to remove the derelict vehicle at his expense.

Distinguishing Between Damages and Costs: The Tribunal clarified the distinction between damages for non-compliance and costs associated with the CAT application, emphasizing the compensation for reasonable pre-CAT legal expenses.

Recommendations: 

Compliance Education and Awareness Campaign:

Given that Mr. Bai neglected to respond to multiple requests from the Corporation to remove the derelict vehicle over an extended period, it might be beneficial for the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) to consider implementing an education and awareness campaign for condominium owners. This campaign could emphasize the importance of prompt compliance with condominium bylaws and regulations, including the timely removal of any vehicles causing violations.
Mediation Services:

To facilitate quicker resolution of disputes and encourage collaboration between condominium corporations and owners, the CAT could explore the possibility of introducing mediation services. Mediation may help parties reach agreements more efficiently, potentially avoiding the need for lengthy legal proceedings. This could be particularly useful in cases where compliance issues arise, and there is a chance of resolution through negotiation.
Review of Cost Allocation Criteria:

In cases where a defaulting party, like Mr. Bai, eventually complies with the requests after the initiation of legal proceedings, the CAT may consider reviewing its criteria for cost allocation. Specifically, the CAT could assess whether the current guidelines appropriately balance the need for compensation to the Corporation with the circumstances of the defaulting party. This review could aim to ensure fairness in cost awards while discouraging non-compliance.

bottom of page