5/10/2022 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 80 published on 01/12/2022
Owner and tenant ordered to stop nuisances and to pay costs. No stay due to ongoing proceeding at Landlord and Tenant Board.
The condominium corporation applied to the Tribunal for an order to stop certain nuisances caused by a tenant. The Tribunal held that the tenant’s activities of sweeping and mopping dirt and water off her balcony and hanging rugs on her balcony railing were nuisances, in contravention of certain provisions in the condominium’s governing documents. The Tribunal ordered that these nuisances cease.
The Tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction to deal with any form of nuisance that is governed by a provision in the condominium’s governing documents. The nuisance in this case met this test.
The Tribunal said that the landlord had “not taken reasonable steps to change or end [the tenant’s] behaviour” and ordered the landlord to take such steps.
In terms of costs, the Tribunal first ordered the landlord to pay all of the condominium corporation’s “Pre-CAT” legal costs, based upon indemnification provisions in the condominium’s governing documents. The Tribunal said:
“Based on my review of the indemnification provisions, I find that [the landlord] is responsible for the costs incurred by TSCC 2138 prior to filing the application to the Tribunal. These costs were necessary and reasonably incurred by TSCC 2138 to enforce its by-laws and rules and to end the nuisance caused by [the tenant’s] regular and repeated conduct.”
In terms of the condominium corporation’s “In-CAT” legal costs, the Tribunal felt that some award of “In-CAT” costs was appropriate, because the condominium corporation had explicitly advised the landlord and the tenant of the rules, the requirement to comply with them, and the consequences of a failure to comply. However, the Tribunal awarded the condominium corporation only $4,000 (not the full amount claimed, which was $8,984.45). The Tribunal said: “This is less than 50% of the total legal costs claimed by TSCC 2138, and I find this amount is reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the issues.”
Note, however, that the Tribunal did not order the landlord to pay 100% of this “In-CAT” cost award, despite the indemnification provisions in the condominium’s governing documents. Instead, the Tribunal ordered the tenant and the landlord to each pay half of the “In-CAT” cost award.
Finally: The landlord had started a proceeding at the Landlord and Tenant Board for eviction of the tenant. Because of that proceeding, the tenant asked that the CAT process be dismissed (as duplicitous). The Tribunal refused to dismiss the CAT proceeding. Among other things, the Tribunal noted that the “parties and issues are different in the two proceedings.”