Not legal advice, as usual.

An ONCAT Condominium Authority Tribunal has upheld a chargeback not specifically platformed within Ontario's Condominium Act 1998 (like sections 92, 98, 105 or 134).

1 - This rejects an owner's application - after his unit was chargeback-liened for what he is here held to FAIL to prove meets the reverse onus of DISPROVING his chattel is non - compliant with undefined "seasonalty" !

( What is rule-compliant "seasonal" when used as an adjective applied to balcony chattels ?

Not in the Rule itself we hear, but apparently to this adjudicator there's a reverse onus for the owner to resolve ambiguity !

2 - Not directly discussed is whether the balcony usage actually triggers a particular ONCAT jurisdiction.

Is this genuinely even a "storage" dispute at all, given that the applicant owner uses it to alternately hang flowers & ( presumably compliant ) Xmas lights ? Whatever, the decision appears to treat the issue as within ONCAT's jurisdiction.

BUT note that the owner himself had applied to ONCAT.

( One door-opening might have been ONCAT's expanded Oct 1/21 "storage' jurisdiction https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=19127&catid=2 )

3 - Challenging a lien at ONCAT

At October 3/21 Ontario's e-laws website still shows that Ontario has not yet proclaimed a lien challenge format that arguably will bar lien challengers from Small Claims Court once ONCAT jurisdictioning is established.

One would also have thought that un-platformed chargeback liens might face challenges after Rahman ( ONCAT ) and Amlani which was upheld by Divisional Court. The ONCAT text claims the owner did not complain.

4 - The Wild West of charge- back liening

There is a bit of irony in that within days New York's Court of Appeal happened to overthrow a buckshee/voodoo application of an otherwise valid fining power contrary to state law : Ives v Fieldpoint C.A. Inc. issued Sep 22/21 https://casetext.com/case/ives-v-fieldpoint-cmty-assn ( N.Y. appeal panel invalidates incorrect DAILY FINES ( for buckshee fence ) that had been bizarrely upheld in lower court decision which must have ignored protests )

At ONCAT :

Sarros v. Y.R.C.C. # 1445, 2021 ONCAT 86 issued Sep 27/21 https://canlii.ca/t/jj96k

Xcrpt

" . . . [2] This case involves the interpretation of a rule which allows only “seasonal furniture” on unit balconies. . . . . .

[12] “Seasonal furniture” is not defined in the Respondent’s rules. . . . He asks the tribunal “to consider the dictionary definition of said terms and to accept the Applicant’s position that the Structure qualifies under said terms”. However, he has not provided a dictionary definition, perhaps because this is not a term that could be found in dictionaries.

[13] In the absence of some more precise definition, it seems to me that a Google search for the term “seasonal furniture” is of some assistance . . . .

Such a search does not produce a structure that looks anything like the structure the Applicant has on his balcony.

[14] I note that the Applicant did not obtain the structure with a view to using it as a table or for hanging flower baskets and lights. . . .

[15] To the extent that the structure has seasonal functions this is limited to the times when the Applicant has hung flower baskets and strung lights.

For the rest of the time, the structure is being stored on the Applicant’s balcony.

This is contrary to clause (b) of the rule, which prohibits storing goods on a balcony.

[16] For these reasons, I find that the Applicant is in contravention of rule 9. The Applicant is directed to remove the structure within 21 days of the date of this decision.

. . . . [21] Issues can arise in cases where legal
costs are invoiced by a condominium corporation and where the owner refuses to pay the invoice (see Rahman v. Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779, 2021 ONCAT 13).

In this case, the Applicant does not dispute that the corporation could seek indemnification if it is determined (as I now have) that the Applicant was in breach of the rules.

Since the Applicant paid the invoice, the potential issues about how the money could otherwise be collected do not arise. ...” - unquote