CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: February 23, 2022 CASE: 2021-00028R
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Michael Clifton, Vice-Chair
The Applicant, Emerald PG Holdings Ltd. Represented by Cameron Thomson, Agent
The Respondent, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2519 Represented by David Barkin, Agent, and by Richard MacGregor, Counsel
Hearing: Written Online Hearing – June 24, 2021 to November 30, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The parties in this case have a lengthy, antagonistic history. They have been before this Tribunal several times in the past few years, and I am aware that there are other court proceedings, as some of these were referenced in the parties’ submissions in this case. All of this is most unfortunate, because it seems entirely avoidable if the parties would govern themselves in a manner that is more appropriate for the purpose of maintaining an effective and enjoyable condominium community.
2The Applicant (or “Emerald”) is a corporation that owns a unit of the Respondent. However, it is Fatih Eroltu, the principal of Emerald, who seems to be the primary instigator of these proceedings; his attitude toward the Respondent’s management and legal representatives appears aggressive and extreme. During the witness evidence, given by videoconference, Mr. Eroltu was unable to restrain himself from harsh and insulting outbursts against the Respondent’s legal counsel and condominium manager, despite my warnings to him to cease such outbursts. When he was no longer present in the meeting, the parties were able to engage more amicably, and it even appeared that a settlement between these parties could be possible, though it so far has not been.
3Emerald brought this Application to the Tribunal in relation to a request for records made under the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) on December 16, 2020. Emerald’s agent, Cameron Thomson, asserted that a number of the requested records were not provided by the Respondent. After reviewing the parties’ submissions on the scope of the issues to be decided by me, I have determined the issues to be as follows:
Entitlement to Records: Is the Applicant entitled to examine or obtain copies of the requested records that were not provided by the Respondent?
Reasonable Excuse for Refusal: Has the Respondent provided a reasonable excuse for refusing to permit the Applicant to examine or obtain copies of those records?
Fees for Records: What fee for the records is reasonable?
Extent of Redaction: To what extent is the Respondent entitled to redact the records?