Owners with a beef centrally about repairs & maintenance, need to make sure that ONCAT Ontario's Condominium Authority Tribunal genuinely has jurisdiction.

That's instead of relying on ONCAT to get things right. Or even to merrily exceed its adjudicative authority.

Simply kvetching about "odours" "nuisance", "noise" etc does not magically create jurisdiction where ONCAT parses the GENUINE ISSUE to be repairs and maintenance for example.

Well-respected Ottawa condo lawyer Jim Davidson ( Davidson Houle Allen LLP ) articles three ONCAT decisions in March 2023. One was rendered by ONCAT's Chair.

All 3 decided that the 'pith' or essence of the complaints was beyond ONCAT jurisdiction. That's even if applicants try to kvetch nuisance / noise / odours etc. So remedies must be left to persuasion / Board changes / Superior Court / sell & move . . .

April 21/23 “Matters Falling Outside the CAT’s Jurisdiction” by lawyer Jim Davidson ( DHA) https://dhacondolaw.ca/condo-law-news/matters-falling-outside-the-cats-jurisdiction/

Rahman v. Peel S.C.C # 779 (2023) ONCAT 37 https://canlii.ca/t/jnr66 ( faulty vent covers; “The Tribunal said: “this case in its substance is about a maintenance and repair issue, which is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction”. )

Cumming v. Y.C.C. #116 (2023) ONCAT 44 https://canlii.ca/t/jw978 ( bedbugs allegedly from a specific unit; The Tribunal Chair : “The Applicant correctly cites section 117(1) of the Act – however, the CAT only has jurisdiction to deal with issues that fall under section 117 (2) of the Act” “ . . . As the Applicant has not yet identified any provisions of their governing documents that prohibit, restrict, or govern infestation issues, the issues in this application appear to be outside of the CAT’s jurisdiction.” )

MacQuarrie et al. v. Leeds C.C. # 3 (2023) ONCAT 47 https://canlii.ca/t/jw977 ( multiple owners complain about post flood remedial complaints ) “The Applicants allege that for several weeks after the flood, there was an odour of sewage throughout the first floor of the building and that it is unclear if there are bacteria in the ventilation system which may adversely affect the health of residents who remain in the building. For these reasons, I find that this dispute is also a dispute with respect to section 117 of the Act, and cannot be characterized as a simple odour nuisance dispute.”

Ontario's current act : https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98c19

Not legal advice.

The dismissals above indicate d.i.y applicants can waste time when seeking a cheap fix

( prohibitions formerly section 117 DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES )

section 117 at May 22/23

The current wording https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98c19 of Ontario’s Condominium Act 1998 S.O. 1998 ch C19’s section 117 -formerly titled “dangerous activities” - shows that the Province eventually proclaimed a bifurcated section 117 apparently effective Jan 1/22.

Overall section 117 is re-titled and finally proclaimed to “Prohibited conditions and activities”.

Part is ss 117(2) which prohibits activities which ONCAT can address albeit not ss 117(1)

Discussions :

March 25/22 “ Superior Court Confirms Section 117 Carve-Out From CAT Jurisdiction” by lawyer Victor Yee( Elia Associates PC ) https://elia.org/resources/articles/view/1185/superior-court-confirms-section-117-carve-out-from- cat-jurisdiction


Oct 1/20 “New Claws For The CAT: Pets, Vehicles, Parking, And Storage (A.K.A. Part 4 Of Why The CAT Must Award Legal Costs)” by lawyer Victor Yee( Elia Associates PC ) https://elia.org/resources/articles/view/1139/new-claws-for-the-cat-pets-vehicles-parking-and- storage-aka-part-4-of-why-the-cat-must-award-legal-costs

Current wording in Ontario's Condominium Act 1998 at May 22/23 :

Prohibited conditions and activities

117 (1) No person shall, through an act or omission, cause a condition to exist or an activity to take place in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation if the condition or the activity, as the case may be, is likely to damage the property or the assets or to cause an injury or an illness to an individual. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 102.

Same

(2) No person shall carry on an activity or permit an activity to be carried on in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation if the activity results in the creation of or continuation of,

(a) any unreasonable noise that is a nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation;

or

(b) any other prescribed nuisance, annoyance or disruption to an individual in a unit, the common elements or the assets, if any, of the corporation. 2015, c. 28, Sched. 1, s. 102.