Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
Yeung v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1136 - 2021 ONCAT 17 - 2021-03-03
Corporation:
YMTCC 1136
Date:
2021-03-03
Summary:
In the case of Yeung v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1136 (2021 ONCAT 17), the applicant sought permission to file a new application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) because they believed the condominium corporation (MTCC 1136) had not fully responded to their record request. The request pertained to invoices totaling $9571.10 for specific projects. MTCC 1136 provided invoices matching the requested amount but only for two of the four projects mentioned in the minutes. The applicant wanted additional invoices for the remaining projects.
CAT Chair Ian Darling denied the request, citing that the issues were minor, and MTCC 1136 had provided invoices matching the requested amount, indicating no refusal to provide records. This decision was based on a history of vexatious conduct by the applicant, where previous cases were filed for improper purposes, and the new request was consistent with such conduct.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Access to Records
Adequacy of Records
Verdict:
The CAT denied the applicant's request to submit a new case as the issues in dispute were deemed minor, and the applicant's history of filing vexatious cases was considered. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that applications brought before the CAT have substantive merit and that vexatious conduct is discouraged by requiring permission for new applications.
Takeaways:
Vexatious Conduct Assessment: The CAT conducted a vexatious conduct assessment, applying criteria from Lang Michener v. Fabian, to determine whether the applicant's request for a new case was warranted. This involved considering whether past actions met the criteria for vexatious proceedings.
Application Dismissal: The CAT has the authority to dismiss an application if the issues in dispute are considered minor, making it unfair to require the respondent to go through the CAT process for such issues. This is in accordance with Rule 17(a) of the CAT's Rules of Practice.
Balancing the Valid Concerns: The CAT acknowledged that while the applicant may have valid concerns about proper management of the condominium corporation, these concerns must be balanced with the finding that previous cases were filed in a vexatious manner.
Preventing Multiplicity of Proceedings: The decision highlights the importance of preventing a pattern of frequent and vexatious applications by requiring applicants to seek permission before filing new cases.
Application Denial: In this case, the applicant's request to submit a new application was ultimately denied, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that cases brought before the CAT have a substantive basis and do not fall into the category of minor or vexatious issues.
Recommendations:
Prioritize addressing significant issues: Applicants should prioritize raising significant issues that genuinely impact their rights as condominium owners, as filing cases with minor or clerical concerns can be counterproductive.
Consider dispute resolution outside the CAT: Before bringing matters to the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT), parties should consider alternative dispute resolution methods, such as negotiation or mediation, to avoid unnecessary legal proceedings.
Learn from prior decisions: Parties should familiarize themselves with previous CAT decisions to better understand the criteria for vexatious conduct and to avoid filing applications that may be deemed vexatious or without merit.