top of page
White Columns
< Back

Rahman v. Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779 - 2023 ONCAT 48 - 2023-03-22

Corporation:

RPSCC 779

Date:

2023-03-22

Under:

CAT Decisions - Motion Order

Summary:

In Rahman v. Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779, the applicant, brought a motion to correct or clarify a previous decision made by the Condominium Authority Tribunal. The applicant disagreed with the findings and requested reconsideration. Additionally, there was a request from Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779 (PSCC 779) to make submissions on costs related to the case. The Tribunal reviewed the requests and determined that neither were for minor changes as allowed by the Tribunal's Rules of Practice. Therefore, both requests were denied. The Tribunal cautioned both parties against continuing to engage with the adjudicator or each other after a decision has been issued, as it may be considered an abuse of process.

Verdict:

In the case of Rahman v. Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779 (2023 ONCAT 48), the Tribunal dismissed a motion to correct or clarify its earlier decision. The Tribunal emphasized that requests for changes to a decision should be limited to minor clarifications and not substantive changes. Parties were cautioned against using the request function to continue engaging with the Tribunal once a case has been closed to avoid potential abuse of the process.




Takeaways:

Key takeaways from the case of Rahman v. Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779 (2023 ONCAT 48) are as follows:

The case was previously dismissed on March 10, 2023, and the Applicant brought a motion to correct or clarify the decision under Rule 46 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant disagreed with the decision's findings and sought reconsideration. He particularly contested the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in his case and raised accusations of misrepresentation by the respondent.

The respondent, Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779, also submitted a request for clarification, primarily regarding permission to make submissions on costs.

The Tribunal's Rules of Practice allowed for minor changes to clarify wording, but substantive changes to the case outcome were not permitted.

Both the requests from Mr. Rahman and the respondent for substantive changes were denied, and parties were cautioned against continuing to engage with the adjudicator after a case has been closed to avoid potential abuse of the process.




Recommendations: 

Review the Tribunal's Rules of Practice: Both parties should carefully review the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice to gain a better understanding of the limitations and procedures governing the correction or clarification of decisions. Understanding these rules will help ensure that future requests are aligned with the guidelines set forth by the Tribunal.

Seek Legal Advice: If either party disagrees with a decision made by the Tribunal, it may be beneficial to seek legal advice. A legal expert can provide guidance on whether the decision is appealable, whether it falls within the scope of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, and what the best course of action may be. Legal advice can help parties understand their rights and options in a dispute resolution process.

Use the Correct Channels for Dispute Resolution: The motion to correct or clarify an order should be used judiciously and in accordance with the Tribunal's rules. Parties should refrain from using this channel as a means to re-argue the merits of their case once it has been closed and a decision issued. If a party has new or substantive concerns or issues, they should follow the appropriate procedures and channels for bringing those matters before the Tribunal, rather than attempting to reopen a closed case through the request to correct or clarify function.

bottom of page