Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1031 v. Lengyel

2025 ONCAT 26 · February 19, 2025 · Partially upheld

Why this matters for Alberta owners

TL;DR: When the corporation's enforcement letters are confusing, repetitive, or unclear about what additional information they need from you, the tribunal will hold the corporation partially responsible for the dispute reaching the tribunal — and reduce its cost recovery accordingly. Chair Darling in MTCC 1031 v. Lengyel cut a claimed $19,738 cost award down to $2,000 + $1,286 explicitly because the corporation's letters were 'complex,' repeated the same language across multiple iterations, and never clearly explained why the doctor's notes already provided were insufficient. The Alberta translation: if your accommodation request or compliance response was met with vague, repetitive, or shifting demands from the corporation, that's a documented basis for arguing the corporation bears partial responsibility for any tribunal proceeding — and for reducing any cost or penalty award against you.

The facts. The respondent was a unit owner at Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1031 with a documented disability that affected mobility. Her unit's assigned parking space was inconvenient given the disability, so she requested an accommodation: use of a visitor parking space closer to the building entrance. She submitted multiple doctor's notes supporting the accommodation request. The corporation's response was through legal counsel — multiple letters demanding additional information, repeatedly asking for the same documents that had already been provided, and using complex language that didn't clearly identify what was still missing. The accommodation request stalled. The respondent began using the visitor space anyway. The corporation filed at the tribunal.

What the tribunal held. The substantive findings were mixed: the respondent had breached the parking rules (using a visitor space without an established accommodation; storing rather than parking a vehicle); the corporation's enforcement order was upheld. But the tribunal split the responsibility for HOW the dispute had reached the tribunal — and that allocation drove a dramatic cost reduction.

The cost-allocation consequence. At paragraph 69, the Chair held the corporation "partially responsible for the issue of the request for an accommodation to park in the visitor parking space coming to the CAT" — explicitly because of the lack of clarity in the corporation's requests for information.

The quantum reduction. The corporation had claimed $19,738 in substantial/partial indemnity legal costs. The actual cost award was reduced to $2,000 in legal costs + $1,286 in tribunal filing fees. The reduction wasn't on the merits of the breach — it was on the corporation's contribution to escalation through unclear, repetitive correspondence.

The broader principle. Lengyel establishes that procedural fairness in pre-tribunal correspondence is itself a cost-shifting factor. A corporation that responds to an owner's accommodation request, compliance question, or factual dispute with vague or repetitive demands — instead of specifically identifying what additional information would resolve the request — has set the stage for tribunal intervention and bears partial responsibility for it.

The accommodation-request angle is particularly Alberta-relevant. Section 9 of the Alberta Human Rights Act imposes a duty to accommodate disability up to undue hardship. The accommodation process is necessarily iterative — the corporation can request supporting medical evidence, but the request has to be specific and tied to the accommodation being sought, not a generic 'more documentation' demand. Lengyel is direct authority that vague-but-repeated requests don't satisfy the accommodation-dialogue duty, and the tribunal will allocate cost consequences for that failure.

Why this matters in Alberta. CPR s.73.7 sets the procedural floor for the Proposed Sanction notice itself, but doesn't directly govern what the corporation's pre-notice correspondence has to look like. Lengyel fills the gap: where the pre-notice correspondence was confusing, repetitive, or unclear about what the corporation needed, that's a documented basis for arguing the corporation bears partial responsibility for the dispute reaching the CDRT. The Alberta CDRT has the same discretionary cost-allocation power under section 35 of the Condominium Property Act.

The Schnitzler/Latyshko/Occleston/Lengyel quartet. Read together, these four cases produce a coherent framework for cost-component challenges:

- Schnitzler (2022 ONCAT 108): corporation went directly to counsel without warning or investigation → 100% reimbursement. - Latyshko (2024 ONCAT 177): corporation DID warn and investigate → cost recovery succeeded, but quantum scrutinized. - Occleston (2022 ONCAT 103): full indemnity reserved for full substantive hearings + persistent misconduct; settlement gets less. - Lengyel (2025 ONCAT 26): unclear or repetitive pre-tribunal correspondence reduces cost recovery even where corporation prevails on merits.

The bottom line: cost recovery is not automatic, and unclear or repetitive corporation correspondence is now an established Ontario authority for reducing cost awards even where the corporation prevails on the underlying merits. Chair Darling's Lengyel decision adds a procedural-fairness layer to the Schnitzler/Latyshko/Occleston framework. Run FineCheck on the notice; document any correspondence-chain failures; raise them as cost-component defects.

What the tribunal said

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

[55] Having reviewed the correspondence from the corporation, I conclude that they could have been clearer about what information they needed. The Applicant's request for additional information was presented in a letter from counsel and appeared to be asking for the same information that had already been provided. It also used complex language and was seeking further proof of the disability, rather than inquiring into how the requested accommodation — use of the visitor parking space — would address the disability-related need. I find that the Applicant is partially responsible for creating this situation. The letters are complex in their wording, repeat the same language from prior letters, and do not clearly explain why they found the multiple doctors notes insufficient. [69] The Practice Direction on costs allows the tribunal to consider 'how the parties attempted to resolve the issues in dispute before the case was filed and before costs were incurred.' I hold the Applicant partially responsible for the issue of the request for an accommodation to park in the visitor parking space coming to the CAT. I have already noted my observations about the lack of clarity on their requests for information. The lack of clarity in these responses was a factor in this case coming to the CAT, and in the Applicant incurring costs.

Connects to FineCheck's framework

• The substantial compliance test
• What evidence do I need at the CDRT?
• Can I dispute a condo fine 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: February 19, 2025 · Citation: 2025 ONCAT 26 · Outcome: partially upheld. FineCheck's commentary is published for research and educational use; not legal advice. Verify any reliance on this decision against the original text.