top of page
White Columns
< Back

Samuel v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 979 - 2024 ONCAT 26 - 2024-02-23




Fri Feb 23 2024 05:00:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)


In Samuel v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 979, a non-resident unit owner, filed an application alleging that the condominium corporation's prohibition on her accessing the rooftop Skylounge constituted a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption. The tribunal had previously dismissed a similar case brought by the unit owner. After issuing a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, citing lack of jurisdiction, lack of reasonable prospect of success, minor issue, and improper purpose, the tribunal received no response from the unit owner within the specified time frame. Therefore, the case was dismissed.


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


Cases may be dismissed if they fall outside the tribunal's jurisdiction, lack a reasonable prospect of success, involve minor issues, or are brought for an improper purpose.


Jurisdiction: The tribunal assessed the jurisdictional scope of the case, finding it fell outside its mandate.
Reasonable prospect of success: The tribunal evaluated the likelihood of success based on the facts and arguments presented, concluding there was none.
Minor issue: The tribunal considered the restriction on the applicant's access to a luxury amenity to be minimal.
Improper purpose: Bringing essentially the same case twice to the tribunal and circumventing democratic processes within the Condominium Act was considered an improper purpose.


Understand jurisdiction: Parties should understand the tribunal's jurisdictional limits before filing applications.
Assess prospect of success: Evaluate the likelihood of success before pursuing a case to avoid wasting time and resources.
Consider alternative avenues: Utilize democratic processes within the Condominium Act for resolving disputes before resorting to tribunal proceedings.

bottom of page