top of page
White Columns
< Back

Susan Ruuska v Brant Condominium Corporation No. 35 - 2019 ONCAT 28 - 2019-08-09

Corporation:

SRBCC 35

Date:

2019-08-09

Under:

CAT Decisions - Decision
Compliance with Settlement Agreement
Fees, Costs, Penalties

Summary:

In the case of Susan Ruuska v Brant Condominium Corporation No. 35, the applicant sought compliance with a Settlement Agreement involving the provision of a "Record of Owners and Mortgagees." The respondent failed to meet the agreed-upon deadline, and although they eventually provided the record, it listed the service addresses of all unit owners, including non-resident unit owners, as their unit addresses. The applicant disputed this, emphasizing that service addresses should not necessarily correspond to unit addresses.

The tribunal found that the respondent did not comply with the Settlement Agreement as they missed the deadline but had since corrected the record. As a result, the applicant was entitled to recover $125 in filing fees incurred for the Stage 3 Tribunal Decision.

Verdict:

In this case, the Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the Respondent, a condominium corporation, failed to comply with a Settlement Agreement by missing the deadline for providing a complete set of records to the Applicant. As a result, the Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Applicant $125 in filing fees. The case underscores the importance of adhering to settlement agreements and the significance of meeting specified deadlines in such agreements to avoid potential financial consequences.

Takeaways:

Compliance with Settlement Agreement: The case revolved around the compliance of a Settlement Agreement between a non-resident unit owner and a condominium corporation. The Settlement Agreement required the corporation to provide a "Record of Owners and Mortgagees" by a specific deadline.

Deadline Non-Compliance: The tribunal found that the condominium corporation did not comply with the Settlement Agreement as it missed the deadline for providing the required records, despite subsequently addressing the issue.

Filing Fee Reimbursement: The applicant was entitled to recover $125 in filing fees incurred for the Stage 3 Tribunal Decision, which was the result of the corporation's delay in providing the records.

Service Addresses: The case highlighted the importance of service addresses for non-resident unit owners and clarified that service addresses need not necessarily correspond to the owner's place of residence.

Sympathy for Personal Circumstances: The tribunal expressed condolences for the personal circumstances of the condominium director, which contributed to the delay, emphasizing that such circumstances do not absolve the corporation of its responsibilities.

Recommendations: 

Ensure Clear Communication in Settlement Agreements: When drafting settlement agreements, it's essential to use precise language and ensure that both parties have a clear understanding of their obligations. In this case, the ambiguity in the term "Record of Owners and Mortgagees" led to a dispute. Parties should work together to clarify terms and avoid misunderstandings.

Meet Deadlines in Settlement Agreements: Settlement agreements often include specific deadlines for compliance. Parties should make every effort to meet these deadlines as failure to do so may lead to financial consequences, as seen in this case. Adequate planning and coordination are crucial to avoid missing crucial dates.

Sensitivity to Personal Circumstances: While upholding legal obligations is vital, it's also important to be sensitive to personal circumstances. In this case, the delay was partially attributed to a family tragedy involving a representative of the Respondent. While this didn't excuse the delay, demonstrating empathy and offering condolences can help maintain positive working relationships in challenging times.

bottom of page