top of page
White Columns
< Back

Petersen v. Durham Condominium Corporation No. 139 - 2023 ONCAT 154 - 2023-10-24

Corporation:

PDCC 139

Date:

Tue Oct 24 2023 00:00:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

Summary:

In Petersen v. Durham Condominium Corporation No. 139 (2023 ONCAT 154), the Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a decision under section 1.47 of the Condominium Act, 1998. The case involved enforcement of a settlement agreement where the Respondent failed to comply. The Applicant raised concerns about unrecorded financial decisions by the condominium board. The Settlement Agreement required the board to declare and ratify such decisions, but they failed to do so. The Tribunal found the Respondent's non-compliance but determined it lacked jurisdiction to order the requested remedy. The case was closed, and the Applicant was awarded reimbursement for the filing fee.

Under:

CAT Decisions - Decision
Adequacy of Records
Compliance with Settlement Agreement

Verdict:

Verdict/Lesson:
In the case of Petersen v. Durham Condominium Corporation No. 139, the Tribunal found that the Respondent failed to comply with the Settlement Agreement entered into in a prior Tribunal case. However, despite this, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked the authority to make an order for compliance as the subject matter and requirements of the Settlement Agreement were beyond its jurisdiction. The case underscores the importance of parties ensuring that settlement agreements align with the Tribunal's jurisdiction for effective enforcement.

Takeaways:

In Petersen v. Durham Condominium Corporation No. 139, the Condominium Authority Tribunal addressed a dispute regarding the adequacy of records and compliance with a settlement agreement. The applicant sought enforcement of a settlement agreement with Durham Condominium Corporation No. 139, concerning the recording of financial decisions in board meeting minutes. The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with the settlement agreement by not passing the required resolution. However, it concluded that the tribunal lacked authority to order compliance with the settlement agreement as the subject matter fell outside its jurisdiction. The case highlights the importance of clarifying jurisdictional boundaries in settlement agreements and resulted in the applicant being reimbursed for the tribunal filing fee.

Recommendations: 

Education on Condominium Governance Practices:

Advocate for educational programs or resources to be made available to condominium board members and residents regarding proper governance practices outlined in the Condominium Act, 1998. This could include training on board decision-making processes, record-keeping requirements, and compliance with the Act. Better understanding of these principles may prevent similar disputes in the future.
Review and Clarification of Tribunal Jurisdiction:

Conduct a review of the Condominium Act, 1998, and the jurisdiction of the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT). If necessary, consider amendments to clarify the scope of the CAT's authority, particularly in situations where settlement agreements involve matters that fall outside the tribunal's statutory jurisdiction. This can help avoid confusion and frustration for parties involved in settlements.
Enhanced Dispute Resolution Mechanisms:

Explore the development of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms within condominium communities. This could involve the establishment of internal mediation services or specialized committees to address disputes related to corporate governance, compliance with settlement agreements, or other matters before escalating them to the CAT. Proactive resolution at the community level may reduce the need for formal tribunal proceedings.

bottom of page