Anyone who regularly attends owners’ meetings will recognize this scenario: the meeting is tense, the chair’s procedural rulings are challenged, and an owner or group of owners threatens to litigate. Historically, the cost of court proceedings has been a meaningful barrier preventing disputes about owners’ meetings from turning into formal litigation. That may be changing. Owners may soon be able to take certain owners’ meeting disputes to the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT).
The CAT was built to be faster and more accessible than court, but accessibility can also invite boundary-testing. It shifts the cost and time burdens onto boards and managers responding to applications from one owner or small group of owners.
A condo corporation cannot stop someone from filing a CAT application, but it can increase the odds of early dismissal and cost consequences by making disputes easier for the Tribunal to screen quickly and by not giving in to attempts at “scope creep” by an owner.
What may change: potential expansion of the CAT’s jurisdiction
While change may be on the horizon for Ontario’s first fully online condominium tribunal, the key details remain unsettled. The CAT plays a central role in resolving disputes as an alternative to the traditional court system. Any expansion of its jurisdiction has practical consequences: increased application volume, more self-represented parties, and more disputes that can consume board and management resources. To understand what may change, it helps to start with what is currently within the CAT’s jurisdiction. As of today’s date, the CAT can hear disputes relating to:
- Disputes regarding condo records;
- Noise, vibration, light, odour, vapour, smoke, and nuisance complaints;
- Provisions in the governing documents (declaration, by-laws or rules) about unreasonable nuisances;
- Disputes involving pets, vehicles, parking, and storage; and
- Disputes related to indemnification and chargebacks related to the above disputes.
The CAT is widely expected to undergo a further expansion of jurisdiction through amendments to the Condominium Act, 1998 and Ontario Regulation 179/17. No formal timeline has been announced and the scope remains uncertain.
There is, however, a strong indication that the next phase may include disputes relating to owners’ meetings. For industry professionals, that possibility matters because meeting disputes are often as much about governance friction and competing narratives as they are about technical compliance. These disputes can generate significant administrative work, even when the remedy sought is unrealistic or outside the CAT’s authority.
Screening and case management: how the CAT controls improper applications
For boards, managers, and other condominium professionals, that key risk is not simply that more disputes may be filed (although this seems likely, as the CAT has a low barrier to starting an application). The key risk is that the CAT process will be used to delay the implementation of decisions that one owner or small group disagrees with, re-litigate governance disagreements, pressure boards into settlements, or expand a narrow dispute into a broader campaign against the corporation. The CAT’s rules of practice are intended to keep proceedings proportionate through early screening, active adjudicator control of issues and evidence, and the ability to dismiss proceedings that are outside jurisdiction, disclose no reasonable cause of action, or are brought for an improper purpose.
In practice, these tools only work as well as the record put before the Tribunal. A well-organized evidentiary record (clear correspondence, minutes, notices, internal memos) makes it easier for the CAT to identify when an application is really a governance grievance dressed up as a CAT dispute. Conversely, inconsistent documentation and informal communications can give an applicant room to reframe events and prolong proceedings, even when the legal outcome should be straightforward.
Costs: realistic expectations and when they matter
The CAT’s process is designed to be accessible, but it is not meant to be a vehicle to bypass statutory governance requirements or to pursue personal campaigns against directors, managers, or neighbours. The rules require parties to act in good faith and permit the CAT to control proceedings, narrow issues, and address misuse of process. From an industry standpoint, the practical takeaway is that boards should assume some applicants will push beyond jurisdictional boundaries, and plan for early, record-based responses that keep the dispute constrained.
Costs are discretionary. In many cases, even a successful condominium corporation should not assume it will recover legal fees for the CAT process. The CAT commonly orders reimbursement of CAT fees to the successful party, and may order additional costs where a party’s conduct is unreasonable, undertaken for an improper purpose, or causes delay or additional expense. For boards and managers, this makes documentation of procedural fairness and a log of avoidable work (late evidence, shifting allegations, repeated non-compliance with directions) especially important if costs are to be sought.
Recent decisions: improper purpose, scope creep, and costs
Recent caselaw illustrates how the CAT applies the above-noted principles to prevent and address frivolous or improper applications. In Akash v. York Condominium Corporation No. 78, 2025 ONCAT 59, the applicant filed a records application that the CAT found was primarily intended to advance broader grievances against the condominium corporation rather than resolve the records dispute. The applicant persistently focused on governance issues, made defamatory allegations, and sought the removal of specific directors despite being warned that these issues were beyond the scope of the application and the CAT’s jurisdiction. The CAT determined that the application was brought for an improper purpose and/or that it lacked jurisdiction over the issues raised, and dismissed the application under Rule 34.3 during Stage 2 (Mediation).
In Russell v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 8, 2025 ONCAT 51, while the application itself was not dismissed as frivolous, the decision illustrates the CAT’s approach to costs where a party’s conduct causes unnecessary expense. The applicant submitted late documents and raised governance-related matters that were outside the scope of the records issues the CAT had indicated it would address. This created extra work for the respondent condominium corporation. Although the corporation sought more than $18,000.00 in legal fees, the CAT exercised its discretion and awarded a nominal $1,000.00 in costs due to the applicant’s conduct. The case is a reminder that even where an application proceeds, “scope creep” and non-compliance can translate into cost consequences—though typically far short of full indemnity for legal fees.
The CAT will dismiss or constrain proceedings where the application is being used to advance broader governance grievances, and it may award costs where a party’s conduct materially increases the time and expense of the process.
Practical playbook for boards, managers, and condominium professionals
There should be a presumption that CAT applications are filed in good faith by owners. However, industry professionals have valid reasons to be skeptical about how an expanded CAT jurisdiction (including potential owners’ meeting disputes) could be used in practice. The most effective protection is a clear, contemporaneous record that shows the corporation acted reasonably and in good faith. This allows the CAT to quickly see when an application is outside jurisdiction, discloses no reasonable cause of action, or is being used for an improper purpose.
The following practical documentation steps may be used to support early dismissal and/or a costs request:
1. Before the meeting, prepare a record of the processes followed. Keep a dated package that includes: (i) the notice of meeting and method of delivery; (ii) the agenda; (iii) the information circular/management package; (iv) language for proposed motions; (v) the proxy form and any proxy instructions; and (vi) the list of those entitled to vote (and how it was compiled). Where there are known “repeat dispute” issues, document the proactive steps taken (e.g., clarification emails to owners on proxy requirements, voting eligibility, or meeting procedure). Have a meeting with the manager and the proposed chair to review this information before the meeting. If the by-laws do not specify, have the chair confirm which rules of procedure they will be using during the meeting (e.g., Nathan’s Rules, Robert’s Rules).
2. During the meeting, document rulings and objections in a structured way. In addition to traditional minutes, consider maintaining a separate “chair’s rulings log” that records: (i) time and the issue raised; (ii) the procedural ruling (e.g., proxy accepted/rejected, point of order allowed/denied); (iii) the basis for the ruling (by-law, statute, meeting rules); and (iv) the outcome (e.g., vote proceeded; motion amended; recess). If an owner alleges bias or impropriety, capture the allegation neutrally and record the chair’s response and any corrective steps taken (e.g., recess, consultation with counsel, re-reading the meeting rules). If there is a serious issue in dispute, or a significant likelihood of litigation, a recess or brief adjournment to obtain legal advice may be more cost-effective than forging ahead despite objections.
3. Confirm key numbers on the record. Ensure the minutes clearly record quorum, opening/closing times, vote tallies (where applicable), and the identity/role of the chair and scrutineers. If proxies are controversial, record the number received, the number accepted/rejected, and a brief categorization of rejection reasons (without including personal information).
4. Keep communications professional and “CAT-ready.” Assume emails and meeting correspondence may become exhibits. Avoid editorial commentary about an owner’s motivations: stick to facts, procedural rules, and governing document references. Where a complaint is clearly outside the CAT’s jurisdiction, say so plainly and early, and direct the owner to the appropriate process (mediation, Superior Court, etc.).
5. After the meeting, create a contemporaneous “meeting file memo.” Shortly after the meeting, ask the chair to prepare a short internal memo (dated, author identified) summarizing any flashpoints: what was raised, what was decided, what materials were relied upon, and what follow-up steps were offered. This can be particularly helpful where an applicant later reframes the dispute or adds new allegations not raised at the meeting.
6. If a CAT application is filed, build the record for dismissal and costs from day one. Where appropriate, respond early and narrowly: (i) identify jurisdictional limits; (ii) highlight where the application is really a governance grievance rather than a dispute within scope; and (iii) point the Tribunal to the documentary trail showing procedural fairness and good faith. If you seek costs, document the specific conduct that caused delay or additional expense (missed deadlines, late evidence, expanding issues beyond scope, refusing reasonable resolution efforts), and keep a running log of incremental time and disbursements incurred in response.
The recent cases show that the CAT is committed to preventing misuse of its process. However, if the CAT’s jurisdiction expands into additional governance disputes (including owners’ meetings), boards and managers should expect that some applicants will test the boundaries of jurisdiction and procedure.
A practical way to reduce the risk and cost of these disputes, whether currently within the CAT’s jurisdiction or anticipated owners’ meeting disputes, is to: (i) keep clear, contemporaneous meeting and decision records (as outlined above), and (ii) consistently demonstrate reasonableness and good faith in communications and process.
The CAT can dismiss frivolous or bad-faith claims, so not every application will result in a lengthy process; and where a party’s conduct causes delay or unnecessary expense, the CAT may order reimbursement of CAT fees and, in limited circumstances, other costs. Condo boards can also use resources from the Condominium Authority of Ontario and seek legal advice when disputes arise to support timely, informed decision making.
Laura Gurr is a partner with Cohen Highley LLP in London. Cohen Highley LLP has offices in London, Kitchener, Windsor, Strathroy, and Sarnia. Laura provides risk management and regulatory compliance advice to condominium corporations, unit owners, and property management companies.
Megan Alexander is a licensed paralegal who works within the Commercial Litigation and Multi-Residential Housing Groups at Cohen Highley LLP in London, Kitchener, Windsor, Strathroy, and Sarnia. Ms. Alexander’s main areas of practice are within the Ontario Small Claims Court (including enforcement) and the Condominium Authority Tribunal.
