top of page
White Columns
< Back

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2208 v. Kaissi et al. - 2022 ONCAT 54 - 2022-05-19

Corporation:

TSCC 2208

Date:

2022-05-19

Under:

CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Compliance with Governing Documents
Pets and Animals
Procedural Issue with Governing Documents

Summary:

In the case of Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2208 v. Kaissi et al., the condominium corporation filed an application to order the respondents to permanently remove their dog from the premises due to a previous dog attack that resulted in the dog being deemed 'dangerous.' As a preliminary matter, the respondents filed a motion to add another unit owner, as a party to the case, holding her responsible for negligence. The Tribunal denied the motion, stating that the other unit owner could be added as an intervenor if her testimony was relevant, but there was no basis to hold her responsible for costs. The decision to award costs would be made at the end of the Tribunal process.

Verdict:

In this case, the condominium corporation sought to order the removal of the respondents' dog after it had attacked another dog on the premises. The respondents filed a motion to add a third party as a party to the case, claiming negligence on her part. The Tribunal denied the motion, stating that the third party could be added as an intervenor if her testimony was relevant, but there was no basis to hold her responsible for costs. The decision will affect her no more directly than any other owner, and this case primarily concerns the board's decision to have the dog removed. Therefore, the motion to add the third party as a party was denied.

Takeaways:


In this case, the Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation (TSCC 2208) sought an order to permanently remove the respondents' dog from the condominium premises after it had attacked another dog and was deemed 'dangerous' by the City of Toronto.

The respondents filed a motion to add the owner of the attacked dog, as a party to the case, holding her partially responsible for the incident. However, the Tribunal denied this motion, emphasizing that the other unit owner could only be added as an intervenor if her testimony was relevant and that there was no basis to hold her responsible for costs.

The key issue in the Stage 3 proceeding was whether the Tribunal should order the removal of the respondents' dog, and the decision primarily hinged on whether the condominium's board of directors had acted reasonably in making the decision.

The Tribunal's standard of review required great deference to the board's decision, and it would not substitute its view of what is reasonable for that of the board if the board had acted reasonably.

The Tribunal deferred the consideration of costs related to the motion until the conclusion of the Stage 3 proceeding.

Recommendations: 

When involved in a condominium dispute, ensure that you adhere to the condominium's governing documents and local regulations, particularly regarding issues such as pet ownership and other potentially contentious matters.

In cases where individuals seek to be added as parties or intervenors in condominium disputes, it's crucial to assess their direct relevance to the dispute and their potential impact on the proceedings before deciding whether to grant their request.

Condominium boards should make decisions, such as issuing notices to residents, based on reasonable and non-capricious grounds, as these decisions can be subject to review by the Tribunal. It's essential for boards to act in accordance with their governing documents and the law to minimize the risk of challenges and disputes.

bottom of page