OCAT 2018

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested paper copies of board meeting minutes and records relating to mould removal from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent acknowledged the applicant's entitlement to the records but refused to provide them, arguing the mandatory request form was improperly completed.

The Tribunal found the form was completed in sufficient detail and ordered the respondent to provide the records.

The Tribunal also awarded the applicant $500 in costs and imposed a $500 penalty on the respondent for refusing the records without a reasonable excuse.

The applicant condominium owner sought access to various condominium records, including contractor invoices and reserve fund statements.

The parties reached a settlement using the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to provide the requested records in electronic format.

The applicant and respondent settled their dispute during the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Stage 2 Mediation.

Having satisfied the conditions of the settlement, both parties consented to closing the file.

The Tribunal ordered the file closed, noting the matter was fully resolved and cannot be re-opened.

The applicant sought a list of owners and addresses suitable for service from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties resolved the matter during Stage 2 Mediation, with the respondent providing the requested list.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order closing the file.

The applicant sought condominium records from the respondent corporation.

The parties reached a settlement using the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online system.

The tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to produce the 2017 general ledger for operating and reserve funds, subject to redactions, and requiring the applicant to pay $120.10 for the costs of production.

The applicant and respondent settled their dispute during the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Stage 2 Mediation.

Having satisfied the conditions of the settlement, both parties consented to closing the file.

The Tribunal ordered the file closed, noting the case was fully resolved and cannot be re-opened.

The applicant participated in an unsuccessful mediation regarding a condominium records request and had 30 days to request adjudication (Stage 3).

The applicant missed the deadline by one day and requested an extension of time.

Applying the factors from Frey v. MacDonald, the Tribunal found that while the delay was short and prejudice to the respondent was minimal, the applicant provided no compelling reason for missing the deadline.

Furthermore, the underlying dispute lacked merit as the requested records had been provided, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order the creation of new records or determine their accuracy.

The request for an extension was refused and the case was closed.

The applicant unit owner brought a matter before the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to comply with a settlement agreement regarding a records request.

The applicant sought outstanding invoices related to building maintenance and a penalty for non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had made best efforts to comply, providing the majority of records by the deadline and the remainder shortly after the condominium president returned from vacation.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent had not contravened the settlement agreement and declined to award costs.

The applicant, previously designated a vexatious litigant by the Superior Court of Justice, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to provide certain records.

The Tribunal found that the application was an attempt to continue a dispute already determined by the courts and was brought for an improper purpose.

The Tribunal dismissed the application without a hearing pursuant to section 1.41 of the Condominium Act, 1998, finding it to be vexatious.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested financial records and records pertaining to a shared facilities agreement from the respondent condominium corporation.

During the online written hearing process, the respondent provided the requested records to the applicant's satisfaction.

The parties confirmed the issues were resolved, and the Tribunal ordered the case closed with each party bearing their own costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested un-redacted copies of proxy forms submitted at the respondent corporation's annual general meeting to audit the election of directors.

The respondent refused, offering only redacted copies to protect owners' personal information pursuant to the Condominium Act, 1998 and O. Reg. 48/01.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to un-redacted copies, as the legislation specifically excludes personal information on proxy forms from the records an owner may examine.

The tribunal ordered the release of the redacted records upon payment of the prescribed fee and declined to award costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought access to various corporate records including audited financial statements, bank statements, and a property management contract.

The respondent condominium corporation provided some records during the tribunal process and agreed to provide the remaining bank statements without charge.

The tribunal found that the respondent was not unreasonably withholding the audited financial statements, as they were not yet completed due to missing documents from previous property managers.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the remaining records in accordance with its undertakings.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking a penalty against the respondent condominium corporation for failing to maintain records.

The applicant had previously been declared a vexatious litigant by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal found that while the court order did not strictly prohibit the applicant from filing an application with the Tribunal, the application itself was vexatious under s. 1.41 of the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal concluded the application was an attempt to continue a dispute already determined by the courts and was brought for an improper purpose.

The application was dismissed without a hearing.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal after the respondent condominium corporation failed to provide requested core and non-core records.

The respondent claimed it could withhold the record of owners and mortgagees and demanded an unreasonable fee for the remaining records.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to all requested records, including the record of owners and mortgagees.

The Tribunal also determined the respondent's fee was not in compliance with the legislation and set a reasonable fee based on an adjusted hourly labour rate.

Due to the respondent's refusal to provide records without reasonable excuse and its late participation in the proceedings, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $1,000 penalty and $125 in costs.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested records from the respondent condominium corporation regarding reserve fund expenditures for pool and walkway repairs, as well as unredacted board minutes concerning his window replacement.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent had provided all required records, including interim reserve fund reports and full board minutes with explanations.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent met its disclosure obligations under the Condominium Act, 1998, and declined to award compensation or costs to either party, finding no evidence of intentional delay or bad faith.