|
Condominiums - Condominium Appeal Tribunal (CAT). Clegg v. Carleton Condo Corporation
In Clegg v. Carleton Condo Corporation (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court dismissed an appeal, this brought against a CAT ruling that dismissed his "claims, finding that there was no violation of the Act" - here where the appellant "alleged that the Corporation failed to redact his name from Board meeting minutes that were shared with the unit owners, contrary to cl. 55(4)(c) of the Act", and otherwise.
Here the court considers the high behaviour standard required for a CAT cost award ["behaviour that was unreasonable, undertaken for an improper purpose, or that caused a delay or additional expense"]:Appeal of the Cost Award:
[38] In awarding $5,000 in costs, the Tribunal considered that the appellant was warned of the consequences of misusing the Tribunal and “the substance of this case relates very directly to the content of the warning in the prior decision”: at para. 34 of the Decision.
[39] Rule 48.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice provides as follows:The CAT generally will not order one Party to reimburse another Party for legal fees or disbursements ("costs") incurred in the course of the proceeding. However, where appropriate, the CAT may order a Party to pay to another Party all or part of their costs, including costs that were directly related to a Party's behaviour that was unreasonable, undertaken for an improper purpose, or that caused a delay or additional expense.
[40] I find no error in the Tribunal considering the warnings in previous decisions. The fact that the appellant had been cautioned in the past goes to the issue of whether his behaviour was unreasonable. Further, $1,500 in costs were issued in the December 2024 decision but at para. 91, the appellant was cautioned as follows:However, I do issue a caution to Mr. Clegg: using records requests (and Tribunal resources) as a tool to pursue issues of governance and/or management practices and/or personal conflict with CCC 382 directors or management is not appropriate and liability for costs could be greater in the future. [41] The warning goes both to the issue of reasonableness and expectations of quantum. At para. 34 of the Decision, the Tribunal explained their exercise of discretion as follows:I find that it is appropriate to award costs against the Applicant because the substance of this case relates very directly to the content of the warning in the prior decision. His application specifically identified concerns about how the Applicant sought to influence how he was portrayed in the minutes. This is an improper purpose because it 'rolls over' issues from a previous case and continues to pursue concerns over governance and his own personal portrayal in the minutes, not his interest as an owner. [42] There is nothing improper in considering warnings in previous decisions to assist in determining the proper quantum of costs for a repeat litigant. This ground of appeal is dismissed.
|
