Peel Condominium Corporation No. 96 v. Psofimis
2021 ONCAT 48 · May 20, 2021 · Notice upheld
ONCAT enforced a pet-removal rule against a unit owner who had ignored months of compliance correspondence about a 3rd German Shepherd exceeding the corporation's 40-pound weight limit — particularly egregious because he had previously signed a written agreement when his 2nd German Shepherd was given legacy status, promising not to replace that dog with another over the weight limit. Member Aylwin awarded the corporation $3,926.75 in legal fees + $536 in pre-tribunal letter costs + $200 filing fees on a full-indemnity basis under the doctrine that costs incurred to enforce against a 'persistently non-compliant' owner should not be borne by the blameless-owner pool. The decision is the source of the 'deliberate-and-repeated' cost-shifting standard now cited across the ONCAT corpus.
Why this matters for Alberta owners
TL;DR: When the corporation says you 'persistently' or 'deliberately and repeatedly' ignored their warnings, that phrase has a specific legal meaning — and triggers full legal-cost recovery against you, not the modest partial-indemnity awards typical of routine enforcement. Member Aylwin in PCC 96 v. Psofimis ordered the respondent to pay the full $3,926.75 in legal fees the corporation spent pursuing him through the tribunal, plus $536 in pre-tribunal letter costs, plus $200 in filing fees — a near-total cost shift. The Alberta translation: if you ignored multiple compliance letters AND violated a written agreement, the persistent-misconduct doctrine puts the corporation's legal costs on you, not on the other owners. Conversely, if the corporation didn't actually send progressive warnings before going to counsel, that's a Schnitzler-style unreasonable-cost defect that protects you.
The facts. George Psofimis owned a unit at Peel Condominium Corporation No. 96. The corporation's Rule 2.1 limits household pets to 40 pounds. In June 2017, Mr. Psofimis signed a written agreement with PCC 96 giving his 2nd German Shepherd legacy status — explicitly acknowledging the dog was over the rule, that the board had made an exception, and that he would not replace it with another oversized dog when the 2nd German Shepherd passed. By March 2020, the corporation had become aware Mr. Psofimis had acquired a 3rd German Shepherd as a puppy. The progressive enforcement chain then ran: March 16, 2020 letter (2 weeks to rehome) → March 31, 2020 email follow-up → July 2020 solicitor's letter → tribunal application. Mr. Psofimis did not respond meaningfully to any of these and verbally told management he had 'no intention' of removing the dog. He participated in Stage 2 mediation but did not appear at the Stage 3 hearing.
What the tribunal held. The substantive finding was straightforward: Rule 2.1 was breached, dog must go. The interesting analysis is in the costs section. Member Aylwin worked through Chan v. TSCC 1834, 2011 ONSC 108 — the leading Ontario authority for full-indemnity awards against persistently non-compliant owners. The Chan principle, at paragraph 37 of Psofimis: "when the Corporation has given repeated warnings of the cost consequences of enforcement to the unit owner and the warnings are ignored, the costs are the consequence of the unit owner's own actions. In these circumstances, the other blameless unit owners should not be made to bear any part of those costs and it is therefore appropriate that the non-compliant unit owner pay the costs on a full recovery basis."
The three Psofimis elements. Read together, the case identifies three structural elements that make 'persistent misconduct' actionable for full-indemnity cost shifting:
(1) Multiple, distinct attempts at voluntary compliance — at least one letter, with escalation to a second letter and then to legal counsel. Single-letter cases don't qualify.
(2) Each attempt offered a real chance to comply — not just demand-and-threat. The pre-litigation letters here gave 2-week compliance windows and explained the cost consequences.
(3) Documented refusal — the owner verbally or in writing acknowledged the demand and refused to comply. Silence in the face of a single demand isn't enough; the owner has to have engaged with the issue.
Why the corporation often FAILS to meet this. The flip side of Psofimis is just as important. Look at Schnitzler (2022 ONCAT 108) — same kind of dispute, opposite outcome. Schnitzler showed the corporation skipped both the prior-warning step AND the investigation step before going to counsel. Turco (2025 ONCAT 35) showed the corporation didn't adequately investigate each complaint. Where the corporation hasn't actually run the progressive-enforcement chain Psofimis assumes, the cost shift fails and the corporation eats its own legal expenses.
Why this matters in Alberta. CPR s.73.7 sets the procedural floor for Proposed Sanction notices — what fields must be present, what response window must be given. It does NOT directly govern when a corporation can recover legal costs incurred chasing compliance. That question runs through (a) the declaration's indemnification clause and (b) the CDRT's discretionary cost-shifting power under section 35 of the Condominium Property Act. The Psofimis framework is the Ontario authority that's most likely to inform how the CDRT calibrates full-indemnity vs partial-indemnity cost awards in early Alberta cases.
The bottom line: Psofimis is the case that justifies full-cost recovery against owners who genuinely stonewalled the corporation through progressive enforcement steps. It's also the case whose factual prerequisites the corporation has to actually meet. Run FineCheck on the notice; document the progressive-enforcement chain (or its absence); decide your response strategy with the Psofimis vs Schnitzler dichotomy in view.
What the tribunal said
Selected excerpts from the Ontario CAT's reasoning. Full decision on CanLII.
[40] I agree with the general principle in Chan that it is not fair that other owners be required to pay for another unit owner's unwarranted conduct. In this case, Mr. Psofimis' conduct was indeed unwarranted, and willfully so. Not only did Mr. Psofimis fail to comply with the rules, but he also violated the rules after signing an agreement that indicated he would not. Mr. Psofimis left PCC 96 no choice, given that they are statutorily mandated to enforce their rules, but to incur costs to pursue this matter. It was only after multiple, cost free, attempts to enforce compliance that PCC 96 was required to take steps that led to PCC 96 incurring costs. [44] Regarding the $3926.75 requested for legal fees, while CAT Rule 46.1 does not generally allow for the awarding of legal fees, I find there are exceptional reasons based on the facts above. The exceptionality is outlined in the previous paragraphs, including that PCC 96 was required to seek an order from the Tribunal for compliance only because Mr. Psofimis deliberately and repeatedly ignored the condominium's numerous attempts to request his voluntary compliance. He disregarded notices, emails and letters and blatantly disregarded the agreement entered into by him, evidently not in good faith, promising to comply, all of which he did without apparent concern for the clear provision of PCC 96's rules that would make him personally responsible for the condominium's costs arising from his non-compliance.
Connects to FineCheck's framework
Jurisdictional note: Ontario CATdecisions are not binding on Alberta's CDRT, but the CDRT will look to other Canadian condo tribunals for guidance under analogous statutory provisions until its own case law develops. The substantial-compliance + prejudice framework used in this decision parallels the test in CDRT Policies and Procedures s.7(b).
Decision date: May 20, 2021 · Citation: 2021 ONCAT 48 · Outcome: notice upheld. FineCheck's commentary is published for research and educational use; not legal advice. Verify any reliance on this decision against the original text.