CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: December 18, 2024 CASE: 2024-00256R
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Nasser Chahbar, Member
The Applicant, Socorro Bolanos Self-Represented
The Respondent, Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 141 Represented by Mitchell Robinson, Counsel
Hearing: Written Online Hearing – August 21, 2024, to November 12, 2024
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. INTRODUCTION
1The Applicant is a unit owner in Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 141 (“CCC 141”). On March 20, 2024, the Applicant submitted a records request, and after the conclusion of Stage 2 – Mediation, the provision or adequacy of the following records remained at issue:
Core Records
An up-to-date record of Owners and Mortgagees
Record of Notices relating to Leases of Units under section 83 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”)
Budget for CCC 141’s current fiscal year, including any amendments
January 2024 and February 2024 minutes of board meetings
Non-Core Records
Bank statements from the general and Reserve Fund accounts from January 2024 to present (March 20, 2024)
CCC 141’s water bills for July 2017, November 2017, December 2017, January 2018, September 2018 and October 2018
2On April 17, 2024, the Respondent emailed all the records to the Applicant except for the water bills and bank statements, for which they attached a cost estimate for the production of these records. On April 18, 2024, the Applicant paid the fees to produce the remaining records. That Applicant also emailed the board alleging that out of the records provided to them, some of the requested records were missing and that some of the records that were provided were inadequate.
3The Applicant claims that CCC 141 did not respond to their follow-up email for the next two weeks, and as a result, they filed a case with the Tribunal. The Respondent provided the water bills and bank statements to the Applicant on May 7, 2024, by which time the Applicant’s case was already underway in Stage 1 – Negotiation. By the time the case proceeded to Stage 2 – Mediation, the Applicant claimed that the Respondent “corrected some of the documents” but maintained that some of the records were inadequate.
4For the reasons set out below, I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with all the records to which they are entitled, and that the records the Applicant received are adequate. I find that the Respondent did not refuse to provide the records without a reasonable excuse and that imposing a penalty against the Respondent is not warranted. In addition, no order will be made to require the Respondent’s Board members to retake the mandatory director training. Since the Applicant’s claim was unsuccessful, I make no order for costs.
B. BACKGROUND
5This is the third records case between the parties (all resulting in a Stage 3 – Tribunal Decision). Based on each party’s submissions, it is clear that the issues between the parties extend beyond issues related to records. As is common in records cases before the Tribunal, there are other underlying issues relating to the board’s governance practices and day-to-day management of the corporation. The Applicant accused the board of mismanaging funds and mistreating other unit owners when seeking information about the board’s construction projects, while the Respondent accused the Applicant of using the Tribunal to validate her allegations of fraud against the Corporation and its representatives.
6The parties were informed several times that issues relating to the governance practices of the corporation are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and that any submissions on these issues would not be considered in my decision.
7After their third case at the Tribunal, it is my hope that both parties have learned enough about records cases and their obligations under the Act so that any further issues may be resolved amicably before hastening to file a case with the Tribunal.
C. ISSUES & ANALYSIS
8The issues to be addressed in this hearing are:
Has the Respondent refused to provide records to the Applicant without a reasonable excuse, either because the Board Response form has not been provided, or because the records were provided late? If so, is a penalty warranted under section 1.44 (1) 6 of the Act?
Are the records provided adequate? If not, what is the appropriate remedy?
Should the Applicant be awarded any costs?
Issue #1: Has the Respondent refused to provide records to the Applicant without a reasonable excuse, either because the Board Response form has not been provided or because the records were provided late? If so, is a penalty warranted under section 1.44 (1) 6 of the Act?
9The Applicant submitted their records request on March 20, 2024. On April 17, 2024, the Respondent provided the Applicant with all of the records except the water bills and bank statements, which were provided