The Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) was created to offer accessible, affordable, and efficient justice for Ontario condo communities. But a question we are often asked is what happens when one party repeatedly uses the Tribunal process to harass, overwhelm, or pressure the other side?
In rare cases, the CAT may declare someone a vexatious litigant. A recent example is the decision in Currie v. MTCC 973, where the Tribunal restricted an owner’s ability to file future cases. On the flip side of the coin, we have Batement v TSCC 2302, where the Tribunal refused to name an owner a vexatious litigant.
This post explains what a vexatious litigant is, how the CAT applies this concept, and what lessons this case holds for Ontario condo corporations. Spoiler alert – it is very rare and should not be the Corporation’s first line of defence!
What Is a Vexatious Litigant?
Generally, a vexatious litigant is someone who repeatedly initiates legal proceedings that are:
- Frivolous or without merit;
- Brought for an improper purpose (e.g., to harass); and/or
- A misuse of legal process
The CAT’s Rule 4.6 allows it to restrict such parties from filing new cases without permission. The text of the rule is below:
If the CAT finds that a Party has filed a vexatious Application or has participated in a CAT Case in a vexatious manner, the CAT can dismiss the proceeding as an abuse of the CAT’s process. The CAT may also require that Party to obtain permission from the CAT to file any future Cases or continue to participate in an active Case. The CAT may also require a Party to agree to an undertaking that they will comply with the Rules and with any CAT Orders.
This is a serious and rare step, used only when there’s clear evidence of abuse.
Currie v. MTCC 973
In the Currie case, the CAT made an order that the applicant was a vexatious litigant based on his pattern of filing meritless and burdensome applications. Now I know what many readers are thinking – “I know an owner just like that!”. However, the road to a vexatious litigant finding is long, slow, and not the ideal path.
In Currie:
- The owner had submitted seven Tribunal applications in one year—many related to the same topic.
- Despite being told repeatedly that the CAT had no jurisdiction over certain issues (e.g., fraud, harassment, board governance), this owner continuously used his records requests to try to argue these disputes.
- The Tribunal found he was using the process not to obtain records, but to prolong a broader personal dispute with the board and management.
The CAT dismissed Mr. Currie’s application, ordered him to pay $6,000 in legal fees, and he was found to be a vexatious litigant – meaning he must now obtain the CAT’s permission before filing future applications.
Bateman v TSCC 2302
In Bateman, the CAT declined to make a vexatious litigant finding, even though the owner’s conduct was far from straightforward.
Mr. Bateman complained of low-frequency noise from the unit below. He complained… a lot!
20 emails in the span of 2 months!
TSCC 2302 responded by sending security to investigate, directing the lower unit to relocate and ultimately replace its speakers, and retaining a professional sound engineering firm. The expert report concluded that sound levels were well within acceptable limits. Mr. Bateman had no further noise complaints after May 8, 2025 – yet he pressed forward to a full hearing anyway.
The condominium argued that the application was filed for an improper purpose and that Bateman was using the Tribunal to air personal grievances against management. The CAT disagreed.
The key distinction was this: Bateman had a legitimate grievance when he filed. The noise was real, it was a nuisance, and he was entitled to bring it forward. The fact that the problem was resolved during the proceedings and that he probably should have withdrawn once he received the expert report was a reason to award costs against him. It was not sufficient reason, however, to label him vexatious.
Lessons
Vexatious Litigant Declarations Are Rare
While the Currie decision may seem encouraging to boards dealing with difficult owners, the Bateman decision reminds us that the bar for a vexatious finding is high – very high. The CAT is cautious, and rightly so, because access to justice is a core principle of its design. Most owners, even if they are persistent or high-maintenance, will not meet this threshold.
Focus on Compliance, Not Conflict
If you’re dealing with a challenging owner who requests records or making complaints the best thing you can do is comply with your obligations under the Condo Act. Provide the entitled records. Engage in an investigation of the complaints. Even if its annoying, and even if you suspect the motives behind the request.
If you’re unsure about what records must be provided or what steps are appropriate to investigate a complaint, consult legal counsel. Trying to “win” by resisting disclosure or hoping for a vexatious finding is, frankly, a good way to lose. It is risky, time-consuming, and expensive.
Document Everything
When facing repeated or complex requests from owners, maintain:
-
- A clear record of correspondence;
- A clear and organized timeline of steps taken by the Corporation to respond;
- Contemporaneous investigation reports.
- In records matters, copies of what was provided and when;
- Notes of any efforts to resolve the matter amicably.
This is the most important thing that can be done to help your credibility if the issue truly escalates to the point of vexatiousness.
