top of page
White Columns
< Back

Sandhu v. York Condominium Corporation No. 42 - 2021 ONCAT 65 - 2021-07-16

Corporation:

SYCC 42

Date:

2021-07-16

Under:

CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Access to Records
Adequacy of Records

Summary:

In the case of Sandhu v. York Condominium Corporation No. 42, a dispute concerning access to records under the Condominium Act, 1998, reached the mediation stage. However, the applicant failed to pay the fee to move the case to Stage 3 within the prescribed 30-day period. The applicant subsequently requested an extension of time, citing delays in communication from the respondent and the belief that the matter would settle. Despite the minor delay, the tribunal, guided by the Frey factors, denied the extension, as it would be prejudicial to the respondent, who had already provided requested records in anticipation of a settlement. Additionally, the remaining issues to be determined in Stage 3 were deemed to have little merit. Therefore, the tribunal ordered the case to be closed due to the expired time frame for requesting adjudication.

Verdict:

In the case of Sandhu v. York Condominium Corporation No. 42, the tribunal denied the applicant's request for an extension of time to request adjudication after a failed mediation. The decision highlights the importance of meeting prescribed deadlines and ensuring clear communication during dispute resolution processes. It also emphasizes that the justice of the case and potential prejudice to the other party should be considered when evaluating extension requests. Ultimately, adherence to established timelines is crucial to maintain fairness and efficiency in the dispute resolution process.

Takeaways:

In the case of Sandhu v. York Condominium Corporation No. 42, the applicant sought to reopen their case after failing to request adjudication within the prescribed 30-day period following a failed mediation.

The tribunal assessed the request for an extension based on factors from the Frey v. MacDonald case, including the existence of a bona fide intention to proceed, the length of the delay, prejudice to the other party, and the merits of the case.

Despite a minor delay and the applicant's claim of reliance on the respondent's indication of a possible settlement, the tribunal denied the extension. The justice of the case and potential prejudice to the respondent were considered, especially since the records had been provided at no cost to the applicant.

The tribunal concluded that the remaining issues had little merit, and it would be unfair to proceed with the case in Stage 3 due to the respondent's understanding of a settlement.

As a result, the case was ordered to be closed due to the expiration of the time frame for requesting adjudication.

Recommendations: 

Adhere to Timelines and Deadlines: Parties involved in dispute resolution processes should diligently follow prescribed timelines and deadlines. In this case, the applicant's failure to request adjudication within the 30-day period led to the closure of their ability to do so. Timely action is crucial to avoid unnecessary complications.

Maintain Clear Communication: Effective communication between parties is essential to prevent misunderstandings. Parties should ensure that any representations or discussions, especially related to settlement, are clearly documented and confirmed in writing to avoid reliance on verbal assurances that may later lead to complications.

Consider the Justice of the Case: Decision-makers in dispute resolution processes should carefully consider the justice of each case and the potential prejudice to both parties when evaluating requests for extensions or exceptions. Fairness and equity should guide decisions, ensuring that the interests of all parties are taken into account.

bottom of page