CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: July 28, 2021 CASE: 2021-00091R
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Patricia McQuaid, Vice-Chair
The Applicant: Tracey Aquilina, Self-Represented
The Respondent: Middlesex Standard Condominium Corporation No. 823, Represented by Stephanie Sutherland, Counsel
Hearing: Written Online Hearing – May 5, 2021 to July 20, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION
OVERVIEW
1This is not the first case before the Tribunal in which the acrimony within a condominium community was at the forefront of a records dispute though here, the level of animosity and ill will reached new heights.
2The Applicant requested the record of owners and mortgagees, on the prescribed form, on February 11, 2021. Middlesex Standard Condominium Corporation No. 823 (“MSCC 823” or the “Respondent”) responded that it would not provide this record, relying on s. 13.3(1) of Ontario Regulation 48/01 (the “Regulation”); that is, that the Applicant was not entitled to the record because the request was not solely related to her interest as an owner, having regard to the purposes of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”).
3The basis for the Respondent’s refusal to provide the record is described in detail in its response and is set out below in full as it provides important context for this dispute, and indeed how this hearing unfolded:
After reviewing the request, it is the Board’s opinion that the request for records is not ‘solely related’ to the requester’s interests as an owner. The requester has a history of litigation and/or supporting or facilitating against the Corporation, its solicitors and its property manager. The Corporation has received numerous complaints that the requester has been knocking door to door within the Corporation, providing misinformation to unit owners and attempting to organize litigation against the Corporation. The Board has been advised that unit owners have moved out of the building due to the requester’s harassing behavior. Based on this information, the Corporation believes that the current request is not ‘solely related’ to the requester’s interests as an owner but is being requested to facilitate and pursue civil action against the Corporation and/or will be used by the requester to send harassing correspondence and misinformation to unit owners. The Corporation must balance an individual owner’s right to inspect records with the Corporation’s duty to the other unit owners.
4The issue to be decided in this hearing is whether the Applicant is disentitled to the record because the request is not solely related to her interest as an owner having regard to the purposes of the Act. Flowing from the refusal to provide the record, the Applicant is also seeking a penalty pursuant to s 1.44(1)6 of the Act, and her costs.
5In the course of this hearing, I limited the parties’, and in particular, the Applicant’s access to the CAT-ODR system because of the number of messages posted as well as the very personal and at times very inappropriate tenor of the messages. I also limited the number of witnesses that each party was permitted to have testify because it became very apparent early in this proceeding that the proposed evidence about the request for the record and the refusal to provide it could easily become the forum for the parties to pursue their respective grievances about the other – the Applicant’s about the board and the board’s about the Applicant’s tactics in challenging the board and its governance practices. The CAT is not the appropriate forum for these pursuits and attempts to use it as such will be curtailed.
6In this decision, I will not refer to all of the submissions before me. The Applicant, for example, used the “Questions and Requests” feature of the CAT-ODR system to make many submissions and comments. Issues raised there, and in some documents uploaded to the system (and which have not been made exhibits in this hearing), related to the actions of the condominium management provider, previous litigation involving board members, the respondent and a law firm, concerns about the use of proxies in board elections and allegations/rumours about a law firm or lawyer’s ethical conduct, were not relevant to the issue and were not considered by me. I will address the evidence and submissions relevant to my analysis and the issues to be decided by me.
7Finally, before I turn to my analysis, I note that the Respondent did request that the application be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious pursuant to Rule 4.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice. That motion was denied for reasons set out in my ruling of June 2, 2021. In addition, the Respondent requested that the witnesses not be limited to one for each party and that witnesses be required to give their testimony orally.