top of page
White Columns
< Back

Sievewright v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1793 - 2022 ONCAT 117 - 2022-10-27

Corporation:

STSCC 1793

Date:

2022-10-27

Under:

CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Indemnification or Compensation
Noise
Other Type of Nuisance, Annoyance or Disruption

Summary:

In the case of Sievewright v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1793, a Motion Order was issued by the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) on October 27, 2022. The case involved an applicant and a respondent, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1793 (TSCC 1793). During the proceedings, it was determined that another entity, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1808 (TSCC 1808), needed to be added as a respondent due to a shared facilities agreement. The parties consented to this addition, and a motion order was issued to address the procedural aspects of including TSCC 1808 in the case.

Verdict:

Procedural Flexibility: The Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) demonstrated its ability to adapt to changing circumstances during dispute resolution. In this case, the CAT allowed for the addition of a new respondent, TSCC 1808, when it became evident that their involvement was necessary due to a shared facilities agreement. This flexibility ensures that the dispute resolution process is fair and inclusive.

Consent and Cooperation: The parties involved, including the applicant and the initial respondent, cooperated and consented to the addition of TSCC 1808. This emphasizes the importance of parties working together to resolve condominium-related disputes. Cooperation can lead to more efficient and effective dispute resolution.

Cost Considerations: The CAT took into consideration the financial implications for the applicant. Importantly, the CAT ensured that the applicant would not be charged for the cost of restarting the case with the additional third party, TSCC 1808. This cost-conscious approach is essential for ensuring that individuals have access to a fair dispute resolution process without being burdened by unnecessary expenses.

Takeaways:

Procedural Flexibility: The CAT demonstrated procedural flexibility by allowing for the addition of a new respondent (TSCC 1808) during the course of the dispute resolution process. This flexibility ensures that all relevant parties are included in the proceedings, even if they were not initially part of the case.

Consent of Parties: The CAT emphasized the importance of obtaining the consent of the involved parties before making significant procedural changes. In this case, the parties agreed to add TSCC 1808 as a respondent, highlighting the significance of cooperation and agreement in such matters.

Cost Considerations: The CAT took into account the financial implications for the applicant when adding a new party to the case. It ensured that the applicant would not be charged for the cost of restarting the case with the additional third party, TSCC 1808. This consideration of costs is important for ensuring fairness in the dispute resolution process.

Recommendations: 

Open Communication: Parties involved in condominium-related disputes should maintain open lines of communication. If there are changes or additions required during the dispute resolution process, parties should discuss and agree upon these changes to ensure that all relevant parties are included.

Consent and Cooperation: Parties should be willing to cooperate and consent to necessary changes or additions to the dispute resolution process. This can help streamline proceedings and lead to more efficient and fair outcomes.

Consideration of Costs: Whether you are an applicant or respondent, it's important to consider the financial implications of the dispute resolution process. Advocating for a cost-conscious approach, where unnecessary expenses are avoided, can help make the process more accessible and fair for all parties involved.

bottom of page