CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Kathryn Kertesz, Member
The Applicant: Patrick Greasley, Self-Represented
The Respondent: Peel Condominium Corporation No. 55, Represented by Barbara Donald, Agent
Hearing: Written Online Hearing – October 1, 2020 to March 23, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. INTRODUCTION
1The Applicant, Patrick Greasley, is the owner of a unit of the Respondent, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 55 (“PCC55”). The Applicant submitted a request for records to the Respondent under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998, (the “Act”) dated September 25, 2019, asking for board meeting minutes occurring between June 2018 and July 2019 and referring to a playground, along with any invoices and contracts referencing the playground.
2There was no factual dispute relating to the request for records and eventual receipt of the records received; however, the Applicant confirmed receipt of the records only in Stage 2 - Mediation. The main issue of non-compliance with the Act and Ontario Regulation 48/01 (the “Regulation”) raised by the Applicant in this case deals with scope and method of redaction of the minutes received and the failure by the Respondent to include a written statement relating to an explanation of the redaction of the board minutes as required by subsection 13.8(1)(b) of the Regulation.
3The Applicant requests that the Tribunal order the Respondent to provide unredacted copies of the minutes in question. He also requests that the Tribunal assess a penalty to the Respondent for its refusal to provide the record without reasonable excuse. Finally, he requests his costs in this matter.
4There are three issues to be decided in this case:
Did the Respondent respond to the Request for Records in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulation? More specifically, did the Respondent comply with the requirements set out in s. 13.8(1) of the Regulation regarding the scope and explanation for redactions?
Has the Respondent refused without reasonable excuse to permit him to examine or obtain copies of the records? If so, should the Applicant be awarded a penalty under s. 1.44(1)6 of the Act?
Is the Applicant entitled to his costs?
B. RESULT
5For the reasons set out below, I find that the Applicant is entitled to receive from the Respondent a statement as required by subsection 13.8(1)(b) of the Regulation that explains the reason for each redaction and an indication of the provisions of section 55 of the Act or the Regulation being relied on by the board. I find that the delay in providing the above-noted records constitutes a refusal, albeit a temporary one, to permit the Applicant to examine or obtain copies of records without reasonable excuse. The Respondent is ordered to pay a penalty in the amount of $650 for its refusal to provide the record without reasonable excuse.
6Further, pursuant to s. 1.44(1)4 of the Act, I award costs of $200 to the Applicant representing the filing fees he paid to the Tribunal.
C. BACKGROUND
7Problems arose in this condominium community around issues of contention regarding a playground put up on the common elements during the summer of 2018. A “playground committee” was formed by unit owners opposed to the playground. Further issues and frustration arose according to the Applicant, a playground committee member, when the playground committee’s concerns were either ignored, dismissed, or met with resistance from the board.
8On multiple occasions during this hearing, the Applicant raised s. 37(1) of the Act relating to