Condominium Authority of Ontario

Thanks for following us here. 👋 We’re no longer active on this platform, but you can continue to access CAO updates, resources, and helpful condo information on our other channels: 🔗 Instagram: instagram.com/condoauthority… 🔗 Facebook: facebook.com/CondoAuthority… 🔗 LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/condom… 🔗 YouTube: @condoauthority" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">youtube.com/@condoauthority

Thinking about buying a pre-construction condo? 🏙️ A recent court decision on the One Bloor West project is a reminder that even high-profile developments can face delays, insolvency, or cancellation. bit.ly/4rFEdim For many affected buyers, deposits are being returned but a refund isn't the same as the value or equity they expected to build. Situations like this highlight why it’s so important to do your homework before signing a pre-construction agreement. Before you buy, make sure you: - Review the developer’s track record - Understand cancellation clauses - Know the project’s financing + market risks - Read your agreement carefully Thinking of purchasing a pre-sale unit? Start with our Pre-Construction Buyer’s Checklist🔗 Check out the Appendix A of the CAO Buyer’s Guide to learn more: bit.ly/4rxshz0

A London condo corporation was successful in its nuisance case after an owner repeatedly shouted threats and profanities in the building A London condo corporation succeeded in a noise and harassment case after a unit owner repeatedly yelled threats and profanities in the halls over several months, disturbing neighbours. The condo corporation sought an order that the owner should comply with the rules. It documented more than a dozen incidents between December 2024 and mid-September 2025. Residents recorded videos showing the owner pacing the hallway, shouting aggressively and directing repeated insults and threats toward a neighbouring couple. The owner did not participate in the hearing, so the Tribunal relied on the corporation’s evidence. It found that the owner created persistent, unreasonable noise and engaged in harassing conduct that disrupted neighbours’ ability to live peacefully in their homes amounting to a nuisance under the Act and a breach of the corporation’s rules. The Tribunal ordered the owner to comply and required them to reimburse the corporation a total of $11,786.24, which includes $1,636.24 in compensation for enforcement costs and $10,150 in legal costs and Tribunal fees. bit.ly/4ptOSKL

The Tribunal found that a Woodstock condo owner's accumulated garbage created an odour-related nuisance A Woodstock condo corporation demonstrated that an owner let garbage pile up inside their unit, causing strong, persistent odours that spread into a neighbouring home. The neighbour first reported the smell in late 2024, describing it as constant and intrusive. They spent hundreds of dollars on air purifiers, but the odour continued except on days when the owner opened multiple windows. The corporation made several attempts to resolve the issue. Staff visited the unit and smelled rotting garbage, saw items stacked to the ceiling, and warned the owner repeatedly between late 2024 and mid-2025. Legal letters were also sent, and the corporation even offered information about community supports. Despite this, the problem continued. The owner did not participate in the hearing, so the Tribunal relied on the corporation’s evidence. It found the owner created unreasonable odour that was a nuisance under the Condo Act. Because the issue had persisted for over a year, the Tribunal ordered the owner to remove garbage and clean the unit within 30 days. After that, the corporation may enter with notice to inspect and, if the odour remains, hire a third-party cleaning service at the owner’s expense. The Tribunal also ordered the owner to pay $750 in compensation for pre-hearing legal steps, $1,000 in costs for the proceeding, and reimbursement of the $200 filing fee. bit.ly/3LWloqC

A London condo owner’s records case dismissed after the Tribunal found the corporation had a reasonable excuse for not providing the requested insurance records A London condo owner requested documents from their corporation related to an insurance denial following a flood in late 2023. The owner claimed the condo failed to provide the “insurance denial letter and related reports” and sought a penalty and reimbursement for a mold inspection. The corporation explained that its insurer and broker had investigated the claim and determined the damage to the owner’s unit was not connected to the insured loss. It said the insurer declined to issue a denial letter because there was no contractual relationship with the owner, and confirmed that the requested record simply did not exist. The corporation also noted that any existing documents related to the broader insurance investigation were exempt from disclosure under the Condo Act because they involved other owners and insurance matters. The Tribunal accepted this explanation, finding the corporation had a reasonable excuse for not providing the record and could not produce something it did not have. It noted that the corporation had been transparent by sharing correspondence and board minutes showing its efforts to obtain the letter from the insurer. The Tribunal dismissed the case, ruling there were no grounds for a penalty or reimbursement of costs, and that the owner was not entitled to damages for the mold inspection. bit.ly/4rjR4qe

The Condo Conference is coming up! Join us for a very special CAO-sponsored open session on the Friday, November 21, from 12:30–1:00 p.m. in the Imperial Construction & Restoration Inc Room. CAO's Marc Bhalla will be moderating an open Q&A session with the Chair and Vice Chairs of the Condominium Authority Tribunal! Come with your CAT questions and be prepared to get a behind-the-scenes look at the Tribunal! We can’t wait to see you there and don't forget to come say hi at Booth #1415! 🙌👀

A Peterborough condo owner’s case dismissed after the Tribunal found it was filed for an improper purpose A unit owner requested logbooks for mechanical and electrical maintenance spanning 25 years. The condo corporation confirmed the logbooks never existed and that this was known to the applicant, based on prior Tribunal proceedings. The CAT found the owner’s real intent was to challenge the property manager’s performance, not to obtain records. The Tribunal emphasized that it does not have jurisdiction to evaluate management contracts or operational decisions. Because there was no dispute that the records did not exist, and the request was tied to a prior case already settled, the Tribunal concluded the case was brought for an improper purpose and dismissed it. No penalty or reimbursement of Tribunal fees was awarded, and the Tribunal issued a warning against further misuse of its process. bit.ly/4nTlrkn

A condo owner in Halton was awarded a $500 penalty after the Tribunal found the corporation had refused records without a reasonable excuse A Halton condo owner requested a copy of the building’s security contract, a record of owners, and a list of leased units. While the corporation eventually provided all documents, the Tribunal found that its initial refusals amounted to non-compliance the Condo Act. The dispute began when the corporation said it would only provide a redacted version of the security contract, citing a confidentiality clause. The Tribunal found that relying on the contractor’s direction without confirming whether redactions were permitted under the Act was not a reasonable excuse. The corporation also initially failed to include locker and parking units in the ownership record. Although these were later provided, the Tribunal found their initial omission unjustified. The Tribunal accepted that the corporation had provided sufficient information on leased units from the beginning. The Tribunal ordered the corporation to pay the owner a $500 penalty for the two improper refusals. No legal costs or Tribunal fees were awarded to either party, with the Tribunal noting the request for $22,000 in legal cost by the corporation as excessive. bit.ly/4p0FEpd

A Gananoque condo resident was ordered to stop smoking after the Tribunal found repeated smoking violations A condominium in Gananoque filed a Tribunal case against a unit owner who repeatedly smoked in their unit and common areas, breaching the condo’s no-smoking rule. The Tribunal found that the corporation made several attempts to resolve the issue, including by issuing warnings and a legal compliance letter, but the owner ignored all communications and continued smoking. The Tribunal reviewed evidence from board members, the condo manager, and resident complaints and concluded that the unit owner violated the condo’s no-smoking rule and the Condo Act, which prohibits smoke or odour that is a nuisance. The owner did not participate in the proceeding despite being notified multiple times. The Tribunal ordered the owner to immediately stop smoking in their unit and on the common elements. They were also ordered to pay a total amount of $5,603.49 to the corporation within 60 days. bit.ly/47Jq4Y1

Today, we pause to honour the courage, sacrifice and service of Canada’s veterans and active service members. Their dedication has shaped the freedoms we enjoy today, and their legacy reminds us of the importance of unity, respect and peace. This Remembrance Day, we join Canadians across the country in reflection and gratitude. Lest we forget. 🕊️ #RemembranceDay #CAOCommunity

Hi, understanding who’s responsible for a repair like a garage door starts with your condo’s governing documents. These outline whether that area is part of your unit or a common element, which determines who covers repairs and costs. You can ask your property manager or condo board for the sections of your governing documents that describe repair and maintenance responsibilities. If you have difficulty getting these records, this page explains how owners can make a formal records request: condoauthorityontario.ca/issues-and-sol… It’s best to start by working collaboratively with your condo corporation to understand how the documents apply before taking further steps.

I’m an Oshawa condo owner facing what seems like an unfair charge for a garage door repair that should be a common element. The property manager insists I pay personally without citing any by-law. @CondoAuthON @TurnbullWhitby #CondoRights #OntarioCondos

Curious about how condo finances work? Read our finance guide here: bit.ly/4nHdCOy

A recent article from the Toronto Star highlighted that the rate of home foreclosures may be going up due to pressures around affordability and the economy bit.ly/4nINYZU Is this potential affordability issue affecting condo owners as well? While the data on that is not clear, one that's clear is that condo owners, unlike homeowners, must not only mind their mortgage, but also their condo fees. Not paying either could eventually lead to the bank or the condo corporation exercising power of sale over the condo unit. That's another reason why careful financial planning is paramount now more than ever. However, life is unpredictable, and if needed, condo owners have options. Owners should try to work collaboratively with their bank (about their mortgage) and their condo corporation (about their condo fees) if needed to find agreeable solutions, which could include deferral. Boards should continue to carefully consider financial pressures on owners and make sure they are planning diligently. If special assessments are likely, owners should get as much notice as possible so they can plan.

A Toronto condo corporation agreed to pay a penalty and reimburse costs to resolve a records case A Toronto condo corporation and an owner settled a records dispute. The owner requested board meetings, financial statements, and property tax information. As part of the consent order, the corporation agreed to provide the owner with several requested records free of charge, including board meeting minutes, financial statements, and a property tax bill. It also agreed to clearly identify any draft documents and to provide a statement explaining why certain parts of previous records were redacted. The corporation further committed to confirming whether a record exists that explains the process for obtaining a visitor parking sticker. If no such record exists, a written statement would be provided to that effect. To acknowledge its late response, the corporation agreed to pay the owner a $250 penalty and to reimburse her $200 in Tribunal fees. The corporation also agreed to issue a credit on the owner’s common expenses so she would not bear any portion of the penalty, filing fee, or the corporation’s legal costs. In doing so, the corporation agreed directed to provide a statement showing the total legal fees incurred during the case. bit.ly/47RQLLq

🎃 Interesting read from the Toronto Star today! As more families make their homes in condos, buildings across Toronto are finding creative ways to celebrate Halloween from organized trick-or-treat routes to building-wide parties. It's time we flip the switch on Halloween in condos because as columnist Katie Daubs says, “if you’re lucky enough to live in a building that makes an effort, it often means extra treats.” 🍫 Read the full story here: bit.ly/4qx5gvt

A Toronto condo owner ordered to pay $6,000 and barred from filing future Tribunal cases without permission A Toronto unit owner has been ordered to pay $6,000 in legal costs and must obtain permission before filing any future Condominium Authority Tribunal applications, after the Tribunal found he pursued records applications for an improper purpose and engaged in vexatious conduct. The owner had submitted a records request to his condo corporation, alleging it had refused access, failed to keep adequate records, and charged improper fees. The corporation responded within the required timeframe and later provided all records identified in the request except for “locker maintenance records,” which it stated did not exist. These were delivered at no cost during the Tribunal's mediation stage. Despite receiving the records, the owner proceeded to adjudication and expanded his request by listing 12 additional items. The Tribunal found most of these were not valid records requests but broad demands for information, related to a personal dispute over a locker rental an issue outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal concluded there was no refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse and no failure to maintain adequate records. It also ruled that the owner was not charged any improper fees. His request for a $4,500 penalty was denied. The Tribunal found the owner used the hearing to prolong a broader grievance and to seek evidence for unrelated claims, including allegations of fraud and harassment. It accepted the corporation’s argument that the application was pursued in bad faith and awarded $6,000 in costs. The owner had filed seven cases in one year, most of which were dismissed or found to have little merit. The Applicant had been warned about improper use of the Tribunal in prior cases. Based on this pattern, the Tribunal ruled he must obtain permission before filing any new applications, citing a misuse of Tribunal resources and unnecessary costs to the corporation and other owners. bit.ly/4hECAN5

A Toronto condo owner withdrew their noise complaint case but now can’t refile on the same issues A Toronto condo owner withdrew a noise complaint case after alleging that their condo corporation failed to stop two neighbours from causing repeated late-night disturbances. The applicant had claimed that one neighbour played loud music and banged on surfaces late into the night, while another gave frequent piano lessons that created regular disruptions. According to the applicant, the condo corporation didn’t take adequate steps to resolve either issue. The case reached Stage 3 of the Tribunal process, with both parties having submitted their evidence and arguments. But just before a decision was expected, the applicant asked to withdraw the case. Because the request came late in the process, the withdrawal was accepted with prejudice meaning the applicant is not permitted to bring the same issues back to the Tribunal in the future. The respondent raised no objection, and the Tribunal officially closed the case without making any decision on the facts or allegations. bit.ly/3WT09YM

What does the condo sector think about CAT expansion? 💬 We asked this question of condo owners, board directors, managers and others during our Annual Meeting on Oct. 1. Almost 500 people filled out the poll. 91 per cent said the CAT should expand to have jurisdiction over at least one of our listed issues. Most attendees believed that the CAT's jurisdiction should expand to cover all the listed issues. Thank you to everyone who shared their input! The Ontario government is currently considering a proposal to expand the CAT's jurisdiction, and we look forward to working with them on this.

Happy Diwali! 🌟 Wishing everyone a safe and joyous celebration! #HappyDiwali #CAOCommunity

Yesterday, we were pleased to attend the CCI Grand River Condo Conference, where our very own Marc Bhalla and Emilee Escobar connected with condo communities and industry professionals. It was a great day of learning and engagement! Our CAO info sheets were included in the attendee grab bags, and we were proud to be the event’s snack sponsor helping to keep everyone fuelled! We’re always glad to support opportunities that bring condo directors, owners, and managers together to strengthen Ontario’s condo communities. 🏙️💬