York Condominium Corporation No. 435 v. Karnis et al. (Condominium Authority Tribunal) August 12, 2022

12/08/2022 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 79 published on 01/09/2022
CAT proceeding not stayed or deferred despite related Human Rights Tribunal proceeding

The parties agreed that the resident required a service animal because of the resident’s disability.  However, the condominium corporation claimed that the resident’s need for accommodation did not entitle the resident to the particular dog, which exceeded the weight limit and was a prohibited breed under the corporation’s Rules.

The resident had also started a claim to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO) and applied for a deferral or stay of the CAT process (because of the resident’s pending HRTO application).

The CAT denied the resident’s request for a deferral, and accordingly allowed the CAT process to continue.

In arriving at this decision, the CAT confirmed that it has jurisdiction to resolve issues under the Human Rights Code.  Therefore, there were clearly overlapping issues under the two separate proceedings.  The CAT also acknowledged that multiple proceedings, with overlapping issues, are generally not permitted.

However, the CAT ultimately decided that a “balancing of all factors” weighed in favour of allowing the CAT process to continue.  The CAT said:

It is a persuasive argument that if the HRTO determines that there was no Code violation, YCC435 would have to proceed with its CAT Application to enforce the removal of the service dog. If the CAT application proceeds, the CAT can address both the alleged Code violation and enforcement. I acknowledge that the CAT cannot address the general, special and aggravated damages remedies requested by the Respondent in the HRTO application. It is unclear whether the CAT’s denial of a stay ultimately precludes the Respondent from pursuing those damages at the HRTO. That is an issue for the HRTO’s determination. Ultimately, one tribunal’s decision may impact a party’s access to another tribunal and the remedies within that other tribunal’s jurisdiction. This is a consequence when tribunals have overlapping jurisdictions.

York Condominium Corporation No. 435 v. Karnis et al