top of page
White Columns
< Back

Schnitzler v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1321 - 2022 ONCAT 108 - 2022-10-12

Corporation:

SMTCC 1321

Date:

2022-10-12

Under:

CAT Decisions - Decision
Indemnification or Compensation
Noise

Summary:

In the Schnitzler v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1321 case, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) ruled in favor of the applicant. MTCC 1321 was ordered to reimburse him $1,449.23 in legal costs and pay his $200 CAT filing fees. The CAT found that MTCC 1321 acted unreasonably by not issuing a warning letter or conducting a proper investigation before incurring legal costs. However, the CAT declined to issue an order for future conduct rules.

Verdict:

In the case of Schnitzler v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1321 (2022 ONCAT 108), the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) ruled in favor of the applicant when challenging Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1321's (MTCC 1321) claim for indemnification of $1,449.23 in legal costs. The CAT found that MTCC 1321 had acted unreasonably in incurring these legal costs without providing a prior warning or conducting a proper investigation into alleged breaches of the condominium's rules by the applicant. As a result, the CAT ordered MTCC 1321 to reimburse the applicant for the legal costs he had paid and to cover his CAT filing fees.

Takeaways:

Jurisdiction: The Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) had jurisdiction in this case, which involved disputes related to noise nuisances and indemnification under the Condominium Act, 1998.

Compliance Letter and Allegations: The case revolved around a compliance letter issued by Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1321 (MTCC 1321) to the applicant. The letter alleged that the applicant's conduct violated condominium rules related to noise disturbances and harassment.

Reasonable Legal Costs: The CAT found that MTCC 1321 acted unreasonably in incurring legal costs without first issuing a warning letter or conducting a proper investigation into the allegations.

Reimbursement Ordered: MTCC 1321 was ordered to reimburse Mr. Schnitzler $1,449.23, which he had paid as legal costs, and to pay his $200 CAT filing fees.

Future Conduct Rules: The applicant's request for the CAT to direct MTCC 1321 to create a four-step rule for addressing future conduct concerns was declined, as it was deemed unfair to dictate the board's approach to such matters.

Legal Standards: The CAT emphasized that condominium corporations must act reasonably and judiciously when incurring legal and compliance costs, and they should follow a fair process when addressing allegations against owners or residents.

Standard of Care: Condominium boards are required to act honestly, in good faith, and with a reasonable standard of care, as outlined in the Condominium Act, 1998.

Recommendations: 

Prioritize Communication and Warnings: Condominium corporations should prioritize open and effective communication with owners and residents. When addressing alleged rule violations, it is advisable to issue warnings first, whenever appropriate. In this case, the CAT noted that previous correspondence included a warning related to language use, which the owner promptly acknowledged and apologized for.

Properly Document Incidents: Condominium corporations should maintain accurate and timely records of incidents, complaints, and correspondence with owners and residents. In this case, the CAT questioned the timeliness and accuracy of the records related to the alleged rule violations, which affected the corporation's claim for indemnification.

Fair Handling of Disputes: Boards of condominium corporations should act reasonably and judiciously when dealing with disputes and incurring legal costs. The decision highlights that condominium boards must adhere to a standard of care, acting honestly and in good faith and exercising due diligence and skill in a comparable situation.

Legal Action as a Last Resort: Condominium corporations should consider legal action as a last resort. In this case, the CAT found that the corporation escalated to a legal letter without attempting other interventions, such as further warnings or negotiations.

bottom of page