CAT Determines that Owner is Vexatious Litigant

In the case of Currie v. MTCC 973, the owner had requested various records from the condominium corporation.  The Tribunal held that the corporation had provided all records to which the owner was entitled, that delays in delivering core records were inadvertent and did not amount to refusal, and that there was no evidence the corporation had failed to keep adequate records or had charged unreasonable fees.  The owner’s application was therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal also held that the application had been filed to continue a broader dispute with the corporation over locker rental issues and allegations of fraud, matters outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The Tribunal further held that the owner had displayed a pattern of vexatious conduct, noting that the owner had filed multiple applications with little merit.  The Tribunal held that this application had been pursued for an improper purpose.

The Tribunal said:

Based on the information before me, I find that that there has been a pattern of conduct by Mr. Currie that is vexatious, improperly requiring MTCC 973 to participate in cases with little or no merit. It is reasonable to conclude that without intervention this conduct will continue. The Tribunal has the authority to control its processes to ensure cases are reasonably pursued for a proper purpose. Therefore, I grant MTCC 973’s request to require Mr. Currie to obtain permission from the Tribunal before filing any future applications.

This order was authorized by the Tribunal’s Rule No. 4.6, which reads as follows:

Rule 4.6 of CAT Rules

If the CAT finds that a Party has filed a vexatious Application or has participated in a CAT Case in a vexatious manner, the CAT can dismiss the proceeding as an abuse of the CAT’s process. The CAT may also require that Party to obtain permission from the CAT to file any future Cases or continue to participate in an active Case. The CAT may also require a Party to agree to an undertaking that they will comply with the Rules and with any CAT Orders.

Note that the above Rule applies only to CAT proceedings.  In other words, the CAT does not have authority to make an order restricting the right of a litigant to assert other sorts of proceedings (such as Court proceedings, arbitration proceedings or proceedings before other tribunals).   However, this authority to grant an order under the above Rule 4.6 is important because it allows the CAT to properly control the CAT’s process by preventing vexatious applications to the CAT. 

Stay tuned to Condo Law News to keep up to date on the latest developments on condominium law!