Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 37 v. Baha

2024 ONCAT 131 · August 26, 2024 · Notice voided

Why this matters for Alberta owners

TL;DR: If your condo refused a disability accommodation and that refusal caused you measurable financial harm, you may have a damages claim — but not at the CDRT. Alberta's CDRT can void the fine, order procedural compliance, and award costs under section 35 of the Condominium Property Act, but it explicitly cannot award general damages. For damages flowing from an unreasonable accommodation refusal, you're looking at Court of King's Bench. The Ontario tribunal in Baha awarded $15,000 to a unit owner who had to live elsewhere for five months because of an unreasonable accommodation refusal — and the Divisional Court (Peel Standard Condominium Corp. No. 779 v. Rahman, 2023 ONSC 3758) confirmed that awarding damages of this kind is part of how the Tribunal can "oversee the conduct of condominium corporations". That Ontario reasoning is persuasive authority for an Alberta KB filing, even though the forum is different.

The facts. Ms. Baha and her partner Mr. Murphy moved into her unit in WNCC 37 in January 2023. Each had a dog. WNCC 37's rule allowed only one dog per unit. Both Baha and Murphy provided medical documentation that their dogs were service dogs supporting their respective disabilities — Mr. Murphy's psychiatrist explicitly stated that he met the definition of disability under the Human Rights Code and that the service dog was necessary to alleviate his symptoms. The corporation repeatedly rejected the medical evidence as insufficient and demanded more, eventually escalating to a tribunal application to compel removal of the second dog.

What the tribunal held. The case turned on whether WNCC 37's refusal of the accommodation was reasonable. Vice-Chair McQuaid found it wasn't. At paragraph 37: "WNCC 37 became too entrenched in its position, too focussed on enforcement of the strict letter of its rules without due regard to the Code accommodation principles. The result was that the matter was propelled forward when a resolution ought to have been achieved." At paragraph 41, citing the Divisional Court's affirmation of Rahman: "part of the role of the Tribunal is to oversee the conduct of condominium corporations". The tribunal then awarded $15,000 in damages under s.1.44(1)3 of the Ontario Condominium Act at paragraph 50 — calculated as $3,000 per month for the five months Ms. Baha and Mr. Murphy had to live elsewhere because of the stress of the litigation.

Why Alberta is different on damages. Section 35 of Alberta's Condominium Property Act gives the CDRT authority over fine disputes, but the CDRT cannot award general damages or compensation for emotional distress. For monetary harm flowing from unreasonable corporation conduct — including conduct that breaches accommodation duties under Alberta's human rights legislation — you go to Court of King's Bench. For smaller money claims unrelated to a fine, Civil Claims Court is an option; see our breakdown of the three forums at /cdrt-vs-court. This is a real limitation: the CDRT can void your fine and order the corporation to comply with its own rules and your accommodation request, but if you've already paid moving costs or carried double housing expenses because of the corporation's refusal, you'll need a separate KB filing to recover those amounts.

The Rahman framework, in more detail. The Divisional Court's decision in Peel Standard Condominium Corp. No. 779 v. Rahman, 2023 ONSC 3758, is the appellate authority that makes Baha possible. In Rahman, the Ontario tribunal had awarded $1,500 to an owner whose corporation refused him an accessible parking space despite his municipal Accessible Parking Permit. The corporation appealed, arguing the tribunal had no business awarding general damages and that the award should be set aside. The Divisional Court upheld the award. Three pieces of the appellate reasoning matter for an Alberta KB filing. First, the Court held that the tribunal's damages authority flows from its general jurisdiction, not from any specific damages-enumeration provision — meaning the same structural argument is available to any tribunal-level body with broad remedial powers, including (potentially) the Alberta CDRT under section 35 of the Condominium Property Act, and certainly Court of King's Bench under its inherent jurisdiction. Second, the Court explicitly framed the role of damages awards as part of overseeing the conduct of condominium corporations — a public-interest framing that resists narrow contractual or property-law analysis. Third, the Court signalled that even where the claim for damages is not explicitly pleaded, a tribunal can award them if it would be open to do so on the record. That third point, applied at Court of King's Bench in Alberta, means an unsophisticated KB filer doesn't need to plead the damages claim with precision — they need to put the facts of the corporation's unreasonable conduct and their own financial harm on the record, and ask for the relief.

How the Baha tribunal calculated $15,000. The damages calculation in Baha is mechanical and reproducible. The tribunal determined that Ms. Baha and her partner had moved out of their unit on March 29, 2024, because of the stress of the litigation. The tribunal counted the months they were out — April through August 2024 — and gave a $3,000-per-month figure based on what Ms. Baha was paying in interest, taxes, and condominium fees on the unit while living elsewhere. Five months times $3,000 equals $15,000. For an Alberta KB filer, this methodology suggests three documentation priorities. First, establish a precise start-date for any displacement caused by the corporation's conduct — the day you moved out, the day you started double-paying utilities, the day the financial harm began. Second, calculate the monthly carrying cost of the unit you were unable to use — mortgage interest, property tax, condominium fees (utilities and insurance can also be reasonable inclusions, though Baha didn't claim them). Third, count the months. A tribunal or court will award damages in tidy round-month increments because that's how the underlying expenses accrue.

The limits of the Baha framework. Baha is not unlimited. The tribunal explicitly declined to award additional damages Ms. Baha had requested for restarting therapy and for missed career-opportunity costs, citing lack of evidence. The lesson: claim only what you can document. Pain-and-suffering damages without medical evidence linking them to the corporation's conduct are speculative; the tribunal will reject them. Career-opportunity damages without HR records, lost-promotion documentation, or income comparisons over time are also speculative. Document everything monthly, with paper, before you file. The $15,000 award in Baha was specifically for documented financial expenses traceable to displacement — not for the broader category of pain-and-suffering that an unrepresented owner might be tempted to claim.

The bottom line: Baha is not a CDRT case for Alberta owners — the CDRT can't grant the remedy Ms. Baha got. But Baha plus the Rahman appeal are the strongest available authority for an Alberta owner taking an unreasonable-accommodation-refusal damages claim to Court of King's Bench. Run FineCheck on the underlying fine notice to handle the procedural defects at the CDRT, and use the Baha framework separately if you need to recover financial losses from the corporation's conduct.

What the tribunal said

Selected excerpts from the Ontario CAT's reasoning. Full decision on CanLII.

[37] WNCC 37 seeks indemnification for legal costs incurred on a full indemnity basis, in the amount of $18,472.10. As WNCC 37 has not been successful, I award no costs to it. It appears to me that in its handling of this case, WNCC 37 became too entrenched in its position, too focussed on enforcement of the strict letter of its rules without due regard to the Code accommodation principles. The result was that the matter was propelled forward when a resolution ought to have been achieved. [41] The Rahman decision was appealed by the condominium corporation to the Divisional Court. At paragraph 33 of the decision, in upholding the damage award, the Court stated: 'It was clear on the record that Mr. Rahman was seeking such an award, and in my view it would have been open to the Tribunal to make such an award even in the absence of an express request for it: part of the role of the Tribunal is to oversee the conduct of condominium corporations.' [49] I find here that Ms. Baha has incurred damages which flow from WNCC 37's non-compliance with its rules. ... [50] ... I will award damages pursuant to s. 1.44 (1) 3 of the Act to Ms. Baha in the amount of $15,000, calculated at $3,000 per month for the five months from April through to August 2024.

Connects to FineCheck's framework

• The substantial compliance test
• Can I dispute a condo fine at the CDRT?
• What evidence do I need at the CDRT?

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: August 26, 2024 · Citation: 2024 ONCAT 131 · Outcome: notice voided. FineCheck's commentary is published for research and educational use; not legal advice. Verify any reliance on this decision against the original text.