Legal

July 15, 2026 Published by Golden Horseshoe Chapter - By Victor Yee

RECENT CAT CASES: A Dangerous Dog, and an Indeterminate Noise Investigation

From the Volume 28, Summer 2026 issue of the CCI GHC Condo News Magazine

The old adage in condominium law about most disputes centering around “people, pets, and parking” still holds true, particularly with the online Condominium Authority Tribunal (the “CAT”) that was established nearly a decade ago.

Two recent decisions from the CAT have highlighted the continued nature of such communal disputes in condominiums.

Dangerous Part-Time Dog: HSCC 694 v. Evlova

In Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 694 v. Evlova, 2026 ONCAT 111, a unit owner’s son lived elsewhere, but let his dog stay with the unit owner while he was at work. The German Shepherd exceeded the condominium’s 15-kilogram weight limit for pets, displayed aggressive behaviour on multiple occasions, and the unit owner had difficulty controlling the dog from lunging and barking aggressively at other residents and children. Nearby, but off-site from the condominium, the dog also allegedly bit another resident.

The unit owner submitted a medical note which indicated that she “should live with a survival companion, like a dog” after her husband had passed away. However, the CAT held that the German Shepherd is not the unit owner’s dog – it was her son’s dog. The dog was only at the premises as a guest or a visitor. The CAT noted that, “It is unusual for a person with a disability to only require the services of a support dog on a part-time basis.”

Even if the German Shepherd was owned by the unit owner and stayed with her full-time, the CAT held that ultimately, the unit owner was not entitled to keep such a dangerous dog at the premises, because doing so would impose an undue hardship on other residents.

Interestingly, the CAT noted in its Decision that it does not have legal jurisdiction to decide disputes about “dangerous conditions” under Section 117(1) of the Condominium Act – namely, a condition or an activity in a unit or on the common elements that is likely to cause property damage or personal injury, such as a dangerous dog which has caused personal injury to others. However, here, the CAT ruled that the dangerous condition of the dog could be separated from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over pets; namely, its adjudication about whether the unit owner was entitled to have the German Shepherd at the premises.

Never-ending Noise Investigation: Stoneburgh v. YCC 266

In Stoneburgh v. York Condominium Corporation No. 266, 2026 ONCAT 104, a unit owner claimed that the condominium failed to properly investigate, and enforce against, her complaints about noise disturbances that she alleged were emanating from outside of her unit.

The respondent condominium was a high-rise building in Toronto, where most of the units are two-storeys and stacked on top of each other in varying configurations.

Despite years of investigation by Management and Security personnel on-site, nobody could figure out where the reported noises were coming from. The unit owner refused to allow the condominium to conduct an acoustical engineering investigation in her unit, due to her concerns about privacy.

Even in Stage 3 of the CAT’s 3-stage dispute resolution process, the CAT adjudicator was unable to determine where the purported noises were originating from or who was responsible for making the noises, which were alleged to be sounds of someone with a carpentry hobby (hammering, sanding, drilling) and furniture being moved around.

The CAT held that the condominium corporation satisfied its legal obligation to reasonably investigate the unit owner’s complaints. The condominium had done what it could to investigate the noises, and could not be faulted for failing to figure out where the noises were coming from. While the condominium could have acted sooner to investigate the noises at the beginning when the unit owner’s complaints first arose, the CAT ruled that, “It is not clear that a more expeditious and timely investigation would have led to any better outcome.”

Takeaways

These two decisions are useful reminders that the CAT will generally look for a practical way to adjudicate a dispute, and focus more on the facts of the specific case at hand rather than the strict letter of the law.

In the dog case, the CAT was prepared to separate the question of whether the German Shepherd was a “dangerous condition” on the property, from the broader question of whether the unit owner was entitled to keep the dog as a human rights accommodation. The CAT found that even though the unit owner had a medical note, the condominium corporation was not required to accept a situation that would create undue hardship by compromising the safety of other residents.

The noise case confirms that a condominium corporation is not expected to solve every complaint perfectly, especially where the source of the problem cannot be verified despite reasonable efforts. What matters is that the condominium responds in good faith, documents the steps taken, follows up where appropriate, and remains open to further reasonable investigation. The CAT’s focus is not on perfection, but rather, on whether the condominium acted reasonably in the circumstances.

Victor Yee is a condominium lawyer at Shibley Righton LLP, and has worked in condominium law for over 10 years. Victor provides practical, cost-effective advice to condominium corporations and unit owners.