David Barkin

The applicant, a corporate owner of two condominium units, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for access to the condominium corporation's current Aged Receivable Report.

This was the applicant's third application for the same type of record.

The respondent condominium corporation argued that it could no longer redact the report to protect specific unit and owner information.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding the respondent refused to provide the record without reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the redacted report, pay the maximum penalty of $5,000 for its unreasonable refusal, and reimburse the applicant's costs and filing fees totaling $710.

The applicant sought access to various condominium records, including board meeting minutes, legal invoices, and bank statements.

The parties reached a settlement during the Condominium Authority Tribunal's mediation stage.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide the requested records, subject to appropriate redactions under the Condominium Act, at no cost to the applicant.

The applicant unit owner sought various condominium records, including legal invoices and proxy forms, which the respondent condominium corporation initially refused to provide, citing alleged breaches of a prior Tribunal order.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to all requested records and that the respondent had no reasonable excuse for its initial refusal.

The Tribunal permitted the respondent to minimally redact the records for solicitor-client privilege and statutory privacy exemptions, and approved a reasonable fee of $1,070 for the redaction process.

Due to the respondent's unjustified refusal, the Tribunal ordered a $2,000 penalty against the respondent, but declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant condominium owner requested various financial and legal records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties agreed on the applicant's entitlement to the records and the hourly rate for redaction, but disputed the estimated time required to redact the records.

The Tribunal found the respondent's estimate of 21.5 hours to be reasonable given the need for careful review of sensitive information, but held that no photocopying fees could be charged as the redactions could be done electronically.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for a penalty, finding the respondent had a reasonable excuse for its initial refusals, and declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant unit owner submitted a request for various condominium records.

The respondent condominium corporation agreed to provide the records but claimed fees for the labour required to redact them.

The applicant disputed the estimated time required for redaction and sought a penalty for the respondent's initial refusal to provide certain records.

The Tribunal found the respondent's estimated fee of $557 for redaction to be reasonable and ordered the applicant to pay it.

The Tribunal declined to order a penalty, finding the respondent had a reasonable excuse for its initial refusal, and declined to award costs to either party.

The applicant requested condominium records from the respondent corporation.

The parties reached a settlement during the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online mediation stage.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the corporation to provide redacted in-camera board meeting minutes and various non-core financial and legal records to the applicant at no cost.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

Following a motion by the respondent regarding multiple vexatious proceedings, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to nominate which of two cases would proceed.

The applicant withdrew this case and nominated the other to proceed.

The Tribunal ordered the case closed and dismissed.