Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476 v. Smalldridge

2025 ONCAT 74 · May 8, 2025 · Partially upheld

Why this matters for Alberta owners

TL;DR: When a corporation's own staff sends compliance e-mails that don't cite the specific bylaw being broken, and the corporation then has to escalate to counsel to do that citation properly, the cost of that first lawyer letter isn't recoverable from the owner — even though the lawyer letter itself cited the bylaw correctly. The Ontario tribunal here ordered $734.50 in cost recovery instead of the $1,469 the corporation claimed, because the corporation's first legal letter only existed to remediate ten months of vague management e-mails. The second letter, sent after the owner was definitively on notice and refused to comply, was recovered. In Alberta, CPR s.73.7(e) requires every Proposed Sanction notice to identify the specific bylaw provision allegedly contravened — Smalldridge is the cleanest Ontario authority that the cost of curing a non-citing prior notice can't be back-charged to the owner.

The facts: a unit owner had been feeding pigeons from her balcony for years. The corporation's administrative assistant sent three e-mails between February and December 2023 asking her to stop. None of them cited any specific rule or Act section — they read like neighbourly requests dressed up as enforcement. The matter then escalated to counsel, whose first letter on April 17, 2024 properly cited Rule 4.01 and s.117 of the Condominium Act, 1998. A second letter on January 22, 2025 repeated the same demands. The corporation claimed $1,469 in cost recovery for both letters.

The tribunal granted the corporation's compliance order on the underlying nuisance issue — the owner was in fact feeding pigeons, that was in fact a nuisance, the order stood. But on costs, Member Spencer's reasoning at paragraph 27 is sharp: "The corporation did not have to incur legal costs to inform Ms. Smalldridge that her activity was causing a nuisance and to cite the relevant parts of its governing documents and the Act she was breaching." Translation: the first lawyer letter only existed because the admin e-mails should have done that citation work and didn't. The owner doesn't pay for the corporation's correction of its own earlier failure.

Why this matters in Alberta. CPR s.73.7(e) requires every Proposed Sanction notice to identify the specific bylaw provision allegedly contravened. Where a corporation's pre-fine compliance letters were vague — 'you're violating our rules' without specifics — Smalldridge is direct authority that the legal cost of finally issuing a properly-cited notice is the corporation's own remediation expense, not the owner's. The Alberta CDRT, which began accepting applications on April 1, 2026 and which routinely looks to ONCAT for guidance on parallel statutory schemes, will find this case persuasive on cost-shifting disputes.

What this means for your fine notice. If you received a fine notice from counsel that cites the bylaw but you also received earlier compliance letters from corporate staff that didn't, you have a Smalldridge argument. The lawyer's letter is doing remediation work that the corporation's staff should have done in the earlier letters; the cost of that remediation isn't recoverable from you. This matters most for owners facing indemnification chargebacks — Alberta corporations frequently bake legal costs into common-expense levies via the declaration's indemnification provisions, and Smalldridge is direct authority that those provisions don't sweep in costs the corporation incurred to fix its own earlier non-compliance.

The bottom line: under Smalldridge, a corporation doesn't get to charge owners for the legal cost of finally drafting a properly-cited notice when its own earlier staff communications were vague. CPR s.73.7(e) makes the bylaw-citation requirement explicit in Alberta — Smalldridge gives you Ontario authority that the cost consequence of citation failures is paid by the corporation, not the owner.

What the tribunal said

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

[6] ... I note that none of the e-mails sent by the corporation referred to any specific provision of the corporation's governing documents or the Act which prohibited Ms. Smalldridge's activity. [27] The corporation also requests compensation of $1,469.00, the legal fees it paid for two letters Counsel sent to Ms. Smalldridge. As noted in paragraph 25, Ms. Smalldridge had three opportunities to comply with the corporation's demand that she stop feeding birds before this matter was escalated to counsel. However, it was not until the first legal letter was sent that she was advised that her activity was breaching s. 117 of the Act and the corporation's Rule 4.01. The corporation did not have to incur legal costs to inform Ms. Smalldridge that her activity was causing a nuisance and to cite the relevant parts of its governing documents and the Act she was breaching. Therefore, I find that the corporation is entitled to recoup only the cost of the second legal letter and I will order Ms. Smalldridge to pay $734.50 as compensation for damages in accordance with s. 1.44 (1) 3 of the Act.

Connects to FineCheck's framework

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

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 8, 2025 · Citation: 2025 ONCAT 74 · 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.