Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Shaheed Mohamed v York Condominium Corporation No. 414 - 2019 ONCAT 20 - 2019-07-09
Corporation:
SMYCC 414
Date:
2019-07-09
Summary:
In this case, a motion order was issued regarding a condominium dispute involving Shaheed Mohamed and York Condominium Corporation No. 414. The Applicant had previously requested clarification of an order issued in the case. The request for clarification was approved and an amendment to the original order was made to provide the requested clarification. However, Counsel for the Respondent sought a review of that decision, claiming that the Respondent was denied the ability to participate in the amending process. The CAT Rules of Practice allow for the review and reopening of a case under specific conditions, such as a failure to appear or participate by a User. After reviewing the submissions, it was determined that neither of these conditions were met, and the request to review and reopen the case was denied.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Verdict:
The request to review and reopen the case was denied because it did not meet the specific conditions outlined in the CAT Rules of Practice, which include a failure to participate or respond. In this case, the Respondent did participate by providing submissions in response to CAT requests, and the question of fairness did not apply. Therefore, the case remains closed.
Takeaways:
This case involves a motion order issued in a condominium dispute between Shaheed Mohamed and York Condominium Corporation No. 414.
The Applicant had previously requested clarification of an order issued in the case, and this request was approved, resulting in an amendment to the original order to provide the requested clarification.
Counsel for the Respondent sought a review and reopening of the case, claiming that the Respondent was denied the ability to participate in the amending process.
The CAT Rules of Practice outline specific conditions for reviewing or reopening a case, including failure by a User to participate or respond. In this case, neither of these conditions were met, as the Respondent did participate by providing submissions in response to CAT requests.
The request for review and reopening was denied because the criteria for such action were not met, and the question of fairness did not apply since the Respondent had not failed to participate or respond.
Recommendations:
Ensure that all parties involved in a case are aware of the specific conditions for requesting a review or reopening as per the CAT Rules of Practice. This will help prevent unnecessary requests based on conditions that do not apply.
Encourage clear and comprehensive communication between parties and the CAT. In this case, Counsel's initial email expressing concerns about the Applicant's submissions could have been more detailed to ensure a better understanding of their position.
Educate users about the appropriate avenues for seeking relief or addressing concerns, especially when a case has concluded. In this instance, the CAT suggested that the Applicant should advance their concerns in another forum if they wished to seek relief, highlighting the importance of knowing where and when to address specific issues.