Newsletters and Articles

When a dispute arises in a condominium setting, the first and most important step is choosing the right place to resolve it. In Ontario, condominium disputes can go to:

·         The courts (Superior Court or Small Claims Court);
·         The Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT); or
·         Mediation and arbitration under section 132 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Knowing which forum has the proper authority to resolve the dispute will avoid delays, extra costs, and legal mistakes.

As of January 1, 2026, Ontario strengthened its carbon monoxide safety requirements. O. Reg 87/25 amends O. Reg. 213/07: Fire Code (the Fire Code) by requiring carbon monoxide alarms (CO Alarms) in more locations than ever before. These changes not only address the serious risk posed by carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless, and potentially deadly gas, but aim to ensure early detection and protection of lives.

In a recent decision of the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT), a unit owner was ordered to pay the condominium corporation $5000 in costs after he claimed the Corporation failed to enforce its noise rules.

For many years, one of the most confusing “records” that a condominium corporation in Ontario is required to keep has been the List of Lease Notifications under Section 83(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”).

Noise disputes are among the most common issues in condominium living and are frequently brought before the Condominium Authority Tribunal (“CAT”).

A recent case at our firm shows how effective Rule 2.1 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure can be for condominium corporations facing meritless lawsuits.

In 2015, the Ontario government delivered the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, which was intended to create a new Condominium Act (the “Act”). It contained many sections which were to be proclaimed in the future. In Ontario, sections that are not proclaimed within 10 years automatically lapse and do not become law.

In a recent Ontario Family Court ruling, Parker v. King, 2025 ONSC 6813, the applicant sought a court order that the respondent not be permitted to bring his albino ball python, called “Rico,” into the courtroom as a service animal.

The judge found that there was no credible evidence that the snake qualified as a legitimate service animal. The judge further found that the “supporting medical note” was not from a properly registered professional and that the purported service animal registry in which the snake was registered as a service animal was fictitious.

In a recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), Lengyel v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1031 (2025 HRTO 1630), the HRTO again reminds litigants that they cannot raise the same issue in more than one forum.

Ms. Lengyel, a unit owner, alleged that she was discriminated against by the condominium corporation. The condominium refused to allow her to permanently park a second vehicle in an accessible visitor parking space that she claimed was necessary because of a disability.