Minor Breaches of Settlement Agreements at the CAT

by Inderpreet Suri

At the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT), parties can agree to settle a dispute through a settlement agreement instead of proceeding with a full hearing. Sometimes, parties may fail to comply with the agreement. If this happens, the non-breaching party may choose to bring a CAT application to compel the other party to comply with the agreement. This application must be filed within 6 months of the breach but, in some cases, the CAT may extend the time period.

Two recent cases at the CAT demonstrate that some breaches are so minor so as to be beneath concern. The legal phrase for this (because lawyers love Latin) is “de minimis non curat lex”, meaning the law does not concern itself with trifles. In these cases, the CAT did not award any costs against the offending party.

In Harrison v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2714, 2022 ONCAT 91 (“Harrison”), the Applicant owner entered into a settlement agreement with the respondent condominium to include specific wording in a notice that was going to be sent to all unit owners. Through inadvertence, the board sent the notice without the specific wording from the settlement agreement, leading the applicant to file a CAT application. The CAT found that while the condominium failed to meet the terms of the agreement, the breach was minor. The CAT found that the appropriate remedy would be for the condominium to acknowledge their error in writing by posting the CAT decision on a centralized platform, which was accessible to all owners. The CAT did not award any costs or penalties and specifically stated that this issue could have been resolved without the use of the CAT if the applicant had discussed it with the board first.

In Day v. Lambton Condominium Corporation No. 31, 2023 ONCAT 41 ("Day"), the Applicant owner entered into a settlement agreement with the respondent condominium corporation which specified that the owner could send all future records requests to one specific person on the condominium's management team. Unfortunately, due to a later change in management and board members, the subsequent board members were not made aware of this agreement and sent a letter to all owners directing them to send their records requests to a specific board member. The applicant unit owner then proceeded to send his records requests to the board member and when the fourth records request was inadvertently not answered on time, he commenced the CAT application. The board members found out about the agreement when the application was commenced. While the CAT found that the corporation did breach the agreement, it was inadvertent and for a short period of time. The breach was minor or de minimis because the owner had been provided with a new designated person for records requests. The CAT did not award any costs or penalties because the owner should have raised this issue with the board before commencing a CAT application.

The key takeaway from Harrison and Day is that even when there is a breach of the settlement agreement, parties should try and resolve it between themselves if possible and should think carefully about whether the matter is worthy of legal proceedings. If they do not try to resolve it, the CAT could find that the breach was minor or de minimis, refuse to make any correcting orders and order no costs or penalties – resulting in wasted time and effort for all parties involved.