CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: February 9, 2026
CASE: 2026-00002N
Citation: Mastrokalos v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 95, Piper, 2026 ONCAT 19
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Ian Darling, Chair
The Applicant,
Ellen Mastrokalos
Self-Represented
The Respondents,
Peel Condominium Corporation No. 95
Cathy Piper
Written Submissions: January 16, 2026 to January 23, 2026
DISMISSAL ORDER
[1] This application is dismissed under Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice for the following reasons:
1. Ellen Mastrokalos (the “Applicant”) is a former board director of Peel Condominium Corporation No. 95 (“PCC 95”). This application also identifies Cathy Piper as a Respondent. Cathy Piper is a director of PCC 95.
2. According to the Problem Description provided by the Applicant, Cathy Piper was a director at the same time as she was and “should have answers to my questions as to what/when/how management/board/condo corp has been dealing with my noise complaints, if at all, over the last 2 years receiving my formal complaints.”
3. The application does not attempt to establish any connection between Cathy Piper and the activity that is alleged to be causing the nuisance.
4. Furthermore, the issues in dispute are already being addressed in the open CAT case #2025‑00842N, where the individuals who are allegedly causing the nuisance were identified as the Respondent, and PCC 95 was identified as the Intervenor.
[2] The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss this case. The Applicant reiterated that the case should proceed because it was about the actions/inactions of the corporation, and Cathy Piper is identified as a party in the case due to her actions as a director. She further elaborated that the initial case relates to the nuisance activity, while this one focuses on the actions and decisions of the corporation and individual director.
[3] This is an improper use of the Tribunal. It is not fair to the Respondents to allow two cases, filed by the same Applicant, to proceed based on the same facts.
[4] If I were to accept that Cathy Piper has any relevant information to provide, it would be as a witness in case 2025‑00842N. If that case proceeds to Stage 3 – Tribunal Decision, the Applicant can propose witnesses, and the Tribunal Member assigned to the case will determine if the testimony is relevant and material to the issues that need to be decided.
ORDER
[5] The Tribunal orders the case dismissed.
______________________
Ian Darling
Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: February 9, 2026