Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
York Condominium Corporation No. 435 v. Karnis et al. - 2022 ONCAT 86 - 2022-08-12
Corporation:
YCC 435
Date:
2022-08-12
Summary:
In the case of York Condominium Corporation No 435 v Karnis et al, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) was requested to adjourn the CAT application filed by the applicant, citing a related application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) by one of the respondents. The CAT member, Stephen Roth, denied the respondent's motion for an adjournment, reasoning that the HRTO application was not yet served, and there were no assurances of its progression. The CAT application sought to determine breaches of the condominium's governing documents, whether the respondents established a disability-related need warranting accommodation, the reasonability and discrimination of a new dog rule, and the removal of the respondent's dog from the unit. The parties disagreed on the jurisdiction and expertise of CAT and HRTO in resolving the matter.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Motion Order
Pets and Animals
Verdict:
Based on the information provided, the quick verdict/lesson from the case of York Condominium Corporation No 435 v Karnis et al is that the respondents' motion to adjourn the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) application was denied. The CAT member found that the motion was essentially a request for a stay of the proceedings, but ruled against it. Therefore, the CAT application will proceed without waiting for the outcome of the respondents' Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) application. This decision emphasizes that the CAT has the jurisdiction and expertise to adjudicate matters related to accommodation needs and discrimination claims in condominiums, even if there are ongoing proceedings in other tribunals.
Takeaways:
Jurisdictional disagreement: The case highlights a dispute regarding the jurisdiction and expertise of the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) in resolving matters related to accommodation needs and discrimination claims. The respondents argue that the HRTO, with its broader range of remedies, should be the appropriate forum to adjudicate the case.
Dog rule and accommodation: The CAT application seeks to determine the reasonability and discrimination of a new dog rule that restricts both the breed and weight of a service dog belonging to one of the respondents, who claims it is necessary for accommodation purposes. The tribunal will assess if the respondents breached the condominium's governing documents and if the dog should be permanently removed from the unit.
Adjournment request: The respondents requested an adjournment of the CAT application pending the outcome of the HRTO application. However, the CAT member decided to deny this motion since the HRTO application had not been served, and there were no assurances of its progression.
Recommendations:
Consider collaboration between tribunals: In cases where there are ongoing proceedings in multiple tribunals with overlapping jurisdiction, it is recommended that the tribunals work together to determine the appropriate forum for adjudication. This collaboration can help avoid duplication of efforts and possible inconsistencies in decisions. In this case, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) should communicate and coordinate to determine the most appropriate tribunal to address the discrimination and accommodation issues raised.
Provide clear guidelines for adjournment requests: The CAT should consider establishing specific factors to guide its exercise of discretion when dealing with requests for adjournment. Clear guidelines would help determine when an adjournment is appropriate and ensure consistency in decision-making. This would assist both applicants and respondents in understanding the circumstances under which an adjournment may be granted.
Streamline the process and address urgency: It is important for the CAT to prioritize cases involving accommodation needs and discrimination claims, especially when there is a potential impact on the well-being and rights of individuals. Efforts should be made to streamline the process, ensuring timely resolution of disputes. Additionally, the CAT should provide a mechanism for urgent cases to be expedited, taking into account the possible consequences of delays on the parties involved.