OCAT 2020

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for records including by-laws, rules, and board meeting minutes relating to visitor parking disputes.

The respondent condominium corporation provided some records but claimed no meeting minutes existed regarding the specific parking issues.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not producing the requested minutes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide board meeting minutes for the 12 months preceding the request, and awarded the applicant a $250 penalty and $200 in costs.

The applicant condominium owner filed two applications regarding access to records and alleged inaccuracies in Periodic Information Certificates, seeking monetary penalties.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed both applications, finding that the requested records in the first case had already been provided, and the second case was brought for an improper purpose to exert control over management.

Finding a pattern of vexatious conduct across multiple applications, the Tribunal declared the applicant a vexatious litigant and ordered that they must obtain permission before filing any future applications.

The applicant, a condominium owner, submitted a records request to the respondent condominium corporation for various invoices.

The respondent initially agreed to provide some records but later refused, arguing the request was not solely related to the applicant's interest as an owner due to ongoing board governance disputes.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the records, as her interest as an owner was not diminished by the parallel disputes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the records subject to a reasonable fee of $30 per hour for labour and 20 cents per page.

Requests for a penalty and costs from both parties were dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to the mediation stage.

The applicant failed to participate in the mediation despite repeated requests and did not respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found the case had been abandoned and ordered it dismissed pursuant to Rule 32.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant unit owner requested records from the respondent condominium corporation relating to the replacement of Kitec plumbing piping.

The applicant alleged that certain records were missing, arguing that the corporation failed to follow the correct process for the replacement.

The Tribunal found that the corporation had produced all requested records and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to investigate the corporation's decision-making process.

The application for further records was dismissed, and no costs or penalties were awarded.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to the mediation stage.

The applicant subsequently failed to participate in the mediation despite repeated requests and directions.

After issuing a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and receiving no submissions from the applicant, the Tribunal found the case to be abandoned.

The application was dismissed pursuant to Rule 32.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant and respondent condominium corporation reached a settlement in a records dispute following mediation.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order under section 1.47 of the Condominium Act, 1998, requiring the condominium board to amend an Energy Committee report for an upcoming AGM and mandating strict confidentiality regarding the mediation process.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging errors and delays in the issuance of Periodic Information Certificates (PICs) by the respondent condominium corporation, and sought a penalty.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the case.

The Tribunal found that its jurisdiction under section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998 is limited to disputes over access to records, not the content or timing of PICs.

As there was no allegation that the respondent refused access to records, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty.

The case was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium owner, requested various corporate records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to provide the records or a timeline for their production, and later demanded an hourly fee and deposit without justification.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the requested records at no cost.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent refused to provide the records without a reasonable excuse, ordering the respondent to produce the records and pay a $1,500 penalty along with $200 in costs.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking access to condominium records.

During the prehearing phase of Stage 3 Adjudication, the parties reached a mutually satisfactory resolution.

The respondent agreed to provide the requested records, and the applicant agreed to pay a $140 fee for labour, delivery, and copying costs.

The Tribunal confirmed the resolution and ordered the case closed.

The applicant sought records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties settled the matter during Stage 2 Mediation, with the respondent agreeing to provide various condominium records, including declarations, by-laws, rules, and documents related to a roof project, as well as reimbursing the $75.00 tribunal application fee.

The tribunal issued a consent order closing the file.

The applicant unit owner requested various core and non-core records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent agreed to provide the non-core records but insisted on charging estimated legal fees for reviewing and redacting them, arguing it had a duty to do so under PIPEDA and the Condominium Act.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal held that PIPEDA does not apply to statutory records requests under the Condominium Act, and there is no general duty to submit every requested record to formal legal review for redaction.

The Tribunal found the estimated fees unreasonable, ordered the respondent to provide the records at no charge, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant sought condominium records from the respondent corporation.

The parties agreed to a consent order resolving the application, acknowledging that the corporation had provided all records in its possession and made efforts to obtain the remaining records from the original declarant.

The tribunal ordered the matter resolved without a hearing, with each party bearing their own costs.

The applicant sought condominium records from the respondent corporation.

The parties settled the matter during Stage 2 Mediation.

The respondent agreed to provide the 2018 Reserve Fund Study, window replacement tender documents, and reimburse the $75.00 application fee.

The tribunal issued a consent order closing the file.

The applicant and respondent condominium corporation resolved a records dispute during Stage 2 Mediation.

The parties agreed that the requested documents had been provided with appropriate redactions, and the respondent agreed to pay the applicant $400.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating these terms and concluding the application.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested records of owners, mortgagees, and leases from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent agreed to provide the records at mediation but had delayed production by almost two months due to the property manager's inadvertence.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the delay was equivalent to a refusal without reasonable excuse and ordered the respondent to pay a $250 penalty and $200 in costs for filing fees.

The tribunal declined to order the respondent to provide a written apology letter.

The applicant, a condominium owner and former board treasurer, sought an order for the production of various condominium records after the respondent corporation failed to provide them despite a signed waiver and a subsequent formal request.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with its obligations under the Condominium Act, 1998 and Ontario Regulation 48/01.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide all requested records, including financial statements, budgets, and contracts, in unredacted electronic format at no cost to the applicant.