top of page
White Columns
< Back

Samuel v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 979 - 2024 ONCAT 11 - 2024-01-15




Mon Jan 15 2024 05:00:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)


In the case of Samuel v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 979, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) issued a dismissal order. The Applicant, a non-residential owner of parking and locker units, had a dispute with the condominium corporation regarding access to recreational facilities, specifically the rooftop sundeck/lounge. The CAT determined that the dispute did not fall within its jurisdiction, as the identified provisions in the governing documents did not restrict, prohibit, or govern activities causing a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption. The case was dismissed under Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice.


CAT Decisions - Dismissal Order
Other Type of Nuisance, Annoyance or Disruption


The dismissal underscores the importance of aligning disputes with the CAT's jurisdictional criteria, focusing on explicit provisions restricting or prohibiting activities causing nuisances.


The CAT has specific jurisdiction over nuisances, annoyances, or disruptions outlined in governing documents.
Disputes must relate to provisions that explicitly restrict, prohibit, or govern activities causing the alleged disturbance.
Non-residential owners may face limitations in accessing certain common elements, and disputes must align with the CAT's jurisdiction.


Parties should carefully assess if their dispute falls within the CAT's jurisdiction based on specific provisions in governing documents.
Non-residential owners need to be aware of any restrictions on common element access outlined in the condominium's bylaws.
Clear articulation of how identified provisions in governing documents directly relate to the alleged nuisance, annoyance, or disruption is crucial for a case's validity.

bottom of page