The Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) provides an accessible online forum for resolving condominium-related disputes in Ontario. While designed to be convenient and affordable, condominiums have often been frustrated at the negligible cost awards they receive despite improper conduct from unit owners.
However, in recent cases the CAT has pushed back on unit owners’ ability to pursue meritless claims or engage in unreasonable conduct by awarding significant financial penalties and procedural restrictions against unit owners. Rule 48 of the CAT's Rules of Practice outline when costs may be awarded, and recent decisions underscore the Tribunal's willingness to enforce these provisions.
Understanding CAT Costs: Rule 48
Generally, if a case is not resolved by a settlement agreement and a CAT Member makes a final decision, the unsuccessful party will be required to pay the successful party's CAT fees, typically around $200.
While the CAT generally does not order reimbursement for legal fees or disbursements, it may do so where appropriate. This includes situations where a party's behavior was unreasonable, undertaken for an improper purpose, or caused a delay or additional expense.
Although historically cost awards in the CAT have been limited, the following recent CAT decisions illustrate the CAT’s authority and willingness to penalize unreasonable parties.
Case Study 1: The Vexatious Applicant
In Currie v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No 973, 2025 ONCAT 180, the applicant, Mr. Currie, brought repeated applications against his condominium corporation, alleging improper record-keeping and unreasonable fees.
The CAT found all entitled records had been provided and that Mr. Currie’s application was for an improper purpose. Notably, Mr. Currie had a history of filing multiple similar and meritless claims. The Tribunal noted that several of Mr. Currie's "requests" were not for records but for information and were improperly raised for the first time at the hearing.
The Tribunal found his conduct vexatious and improperly required the condominium to participate in cases with little or no merit. As a result, the CAT awarded the condominium $6,000 in costs. In addition, the CAT required Mr. Currie to obtain permission from the CAT before filing any future applications.
Case Study 2: Breaching a Settlement Agreement
Another cautionary tale comes from Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No 1002 v Marshall, 2025 ONCAT 130.
In this case, Mr. Marshall breached a settlement agreement with his condominium by repeatedly ignoring its terms. Mr. Marshall had violated the agreement by storing materials on common elements, parking in loading areas for extended periods, and disposing of his business-related waste in the condominium’s bins. Mr. Marshall’s arguments of selective enforcement were found to be unsupported.
Considering Mr. Marshall had been advised of the breaches twice and demonstrated a clear understanding of the agreement, the CAT found Mr. Marshall’s conduct unreasonable and awarded $11,000 in legal costs to the condominium, representing 60% of the legal fees requested.
Case Study 3: Failure to Participate
Our final case study is Middlesex Condominium Corporation No. 79 v. Wuest, 2025 ONCAT 194. In this case, the unit owner, Mr. Wuest, did not participate in the Tribunal process, and thus the CAT only had the condominium’s evidence to rely on.
The CAT found that Mr. Wuest had been creating unreasonable noise under section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, and violated rules of the corporation by yelling and screaming, often using inappropriate language, both inside his unit and in the common elements. The condominium offered videos of some of these incidents, and Mr. Wuest’s language was noted as “outrageous, unacceptable, and alarming.”
Due to the number of incidents and the lengths the condominium had taken to address the issues, the CAT ordered Mr. Wuest to pay $1,636.24 to the condominium as compensation for damages, as well as $10,150 to the condominium for their legal costs. Effectively, the condominium received $10,000 in costs for obtaining a default judgment.
These cases serve as a shift in the landscape of condominium litigation. While the CAT aims for an accessible and affordable dispute resolution process, it will impose significant cost awards and procedural restrictions on parties whose conduct is unreasonable, improper, or causes undue burden on others. Unit owners should carefully consider the merits of their claims and their conduct within their condominium community to avoid similar costly consequences.
Currie v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No 973, 2025 ONCAT 180.
Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No 1002 v Marshall, 2025 ONCAT 130.
Middlesex Condominium Corporation No. 79 v. Wuest, 2025 ONCAT 194
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and is not legal advice. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your specific circumstance.