Other Decisions and Orders related to the CAT
Other legal bodies, such as the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, may issue a decision or order which relates to previously issued CAT decision or order. Most often, these decisions or orders from other legal bodies will relate to the enforcement or appeal of a CAT decision or order.
When the CAT is notified of these instances, a summary and a link to the full decision or order on CanLII will be found on this webpage.
- The Applicant appealed the CAT’s decision in Gagnon v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 331, 2021 ONCAT 56, arguing that the Tribunal had made several errors. The Divisional Court found that the appellant had not identified any error of law, and that she was instead challenging findings of fact and mixed findings of fact and law, which the court does not have jurisdiction to review. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay $8,500 in legal costs to her condominium corporation.
- The Applicant appealed the CAT’s decision requiring him to remove a structure from his balcony in Sarros v. York Region Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1445, 2021 ONCAT 86. The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal had properly considered the material evidence and that the appellant had not identified any error of law. The Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay $3,000 in legal costs to his condominium corporation.
- The Respondent appealed the CAT’s decision requiring it to pay $200 in CAT fees to the Applicant in Roberts v. Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 617 and Yamine, 2021 ONCAT 21. The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal had erred in law by ordering the condominium corporation to reimburse the unit owner after finding that the condo corporation was the successful party. The Divisional Court set aside the CAT’s costs order.
- The Respondent filed an application for judicial review of the CAT’s decision in Rahman v. Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779, 2021 ONCAT 13 to Divisional Court. The Court dismissed the application for judicial review because that there is an existing statutory right of appeal of the decision (as set out in section 1.46 of the Condominium Act, 1998) which the Respondent had not pursued, and because the Court was not satisfied that there were exceptional reasons to interfere with the decision by way of judicial review.
- The Applicant appealed the CAT’s decision to dismiss the case in Kong v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1959, 2021 ONCAT 18 to Divisional Court. On consent of the parties, the Divisional Court ordered that the CAT’s decision be set aside and the case be remitted to the CAT to resolve the remaining issues in dispute. The Divisional Court order specifically notes that the Court has not passed any judgement on the CAT’s interpretation of sections 1.36 (6) and (7) of the Condominium Act, 1998 in the CAT’s original decision.
- The CAT has since released its decision in this case: Kong v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1959, 2021 ONCAT 96
- Under subsection 1.46 (2) of the Condo Act, a party involved in a CAT case can file an appeal of the CAT’s decision to Divisional Court on a question of law. Halton Condominium Corporation No. 61 appealed the CAT’s decision in Jack Gale v Halton Condominium Corporation No. 61, 2019 ONCAT 46 (CanLII), arguing that the CAT had misapplied the law in reaching its decision. The Court found that the CAT had not made an error in law. As a result, the CAT’s decision was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
- Thanrani Holdings Inc. applied to the Superior Court of Justice to enforce compliance with an order of the Condominium Authority Tribunal (Tharani Holdings Inc. v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 812, 2019 ONCAT 3 (CanLII)). As a result, the Superior Court of Justice ordered Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 812 to pay Tharani Holdings Inc. $14,715.91 in costs. This decision demonstrates the importance of complying with the CAT’s orders.