04/06/2026– Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 94 published on 01/06/2026
Despite pending Human Rights Tribunal proceeding, CAT Application permitted to continue.
The condominium corporation applied to the Tribunal for enforcement of the Corporation’s “no dogs” rule. The rule included exceptions for service dogs.
The Respondent Acai requested a deferral of the CAT proceedings pending the resolution of a parallel application filed with the HRTO on February 20, 2026.
The Tribunal denied this request. The Tribunal ruled that it possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate Human Rights Code issues when they are central to the enforcement of pet rules and nuisance claims. The Tribunal said:
While I acknowledge that the CAT cannot address the general, special and aggravated damages remedies that would be potentially requested by Acai in the HRTO application, this does not give primacy to the HRTO over this dispute. As stated in paragraph 40 of (the decision in the case of York Condominium Corporation No. 435 v. Karnis et al., 2022 ONCAT 86): “Ultimately, one tribunal’s decision may impact a party’s access to another tribunal and the remedies within that other tribunal’s jurisdiction. This is a consequence when tribunals have overlapping jurisdictions.”
Acai also adds that MTCC 723 faces minimal prejudice, as the dog is already present, task‑trained, and causing no urgent safety issues. However, this does not address the prejudice by the delay MTCC 723 would suffer for not being able to advance its claim for rule compliance at the HRTO.
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 723 v. Acai, Vipulanandan, 2026 ONCAT 62