CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: October 20, 2022 CASE: 2022-00496SA
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Benjamin Drory, Member
The Applicant: Helene Sakala, Self-Represented The Respondent: York Condominium Corporation No. 344, Represented by Justin McLarty, Counsel
Hearing: Written Online Hearing – August 18 to September 6, 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION
OVERVIEW
1The Applicant, Helene Sakala, a unit owner of the Respondent, alleged that the Respondent failed to observe the terms of the September 2, 2020, Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) that resolved Tribunal case number 2020-00174R (the “2020 Case”) between the parties.
2The relevant details of the Agreement are as follows:
Settlement
The Respondent agrees to institute a procedure to have the minutes of board meetings signed by the Board and posted to the MaxCondoClub site within 7 days of their approval by the Board. This procedure will be put into place within 20 business days of the finalizing of this settlement agreement.
Should the Applicant have any questions or concerns about the records she receives through this Settlement Agreement, the Applicant agrees to submit these questions to the Board in writing within 20 business days. The Board agrees to respond to these inquiries in writing within 20 business days. (This is in lieu of a meeting).
Compliance
If either the Applicant or Respondent fails to comply with this Settlement Agreement, then the other User is entitled to file a case with the CAT requesting an order requiring compliance with this Settlement Agreement. That case must be filed within six months of when the terms of this agreement were broken.
Privacy & Confidentiality
This Settlement Agreement is confidential, meaning the Users are not allowed to share it with others, or tell others about the details of the settlement without the permission of the other User. The Users may share a copy of any document they received if required by law, such as to a government organization or a court. …
3The Applicant argued that the crux of this case was simply whether or not the Respondent observed the terms of the Agreement. She asserted that the Respondent was in non-compliance with the Agreement at least 59% of the time since the procedure was instituted on October 1, 2020.
4The Applicant submitted a lengthy table (48 rows x 7 columns) listing dates of board meetings, the dates their minutes were approved, signed and posted, and the number of days the Respondent took to sign and post minutes following their approval. Given the table’s length, I will not reproduce it here. I noted improvements in the Respondent’s timeframes for posting minutes to its website after the Applicant made her Request for Records in June 2020. If the Applicant’s data is to be believed, then the Respondent had previously been frequently taking 6-7 months to post minutes of meetings.
5The Applicant asserted that the Respondent’s compliance with the Agreement started well, but then became sporadic. She asserted that 13 out of 22 approved minutes posted to date (i.e., 59%) exceeded the agreed-to seven business days – and that therefore the Respondent and its property manager breached the mediated Agreement.
6The Applicant also expressed concern that somebody had deleted the January 28, 2021 board meeting minutes from MaxCondoClub, which she felt contained important information.
7The Applicant asked how she could guarantee that the Agreement’s procedure would continue to be enforced in future if there was a change in the board, property management, or its legal counsel, or if she was no longer a resident. She asked for the Agreement to be “forwarded” to future boards and property management for continuation of the process, including if she moved away.
8The Applicant further asked that the Respondent’s condominium manager and board members each be held personally liable and fined $500 for every set of minutes in non-compliance with the Agreement, and that any instance of minutes deleted or removed from MaxCondoClub should carry fines of $1,000 each. She felt that the corporate Respondent shouldn’t be held liable, as in her opinion it was the board and property manager who were continually in non-compliance with obligations, and they would only observe the Agreement if they were personally financially punished.
9The Respondent argued that the Applicant’s table included 20 sets of entries from prior to October 1, 2020, and included meetings that weren’t board meetings, but rather owners’ meetings (including town halls), and as such were outside the scope of the Agreement.
10It stated that the Agreement provided for a six-month period to file a compliance case, and there were only six sets of board meeting minutes that fell within the timeframe to commence a case – being the minutes of the February 24, March 24, April 26, May 19, June 21, and July 8, 2022 board meetings. It submitted that for five of those six meetings, the minutes were amended and unavailable for signature at the meetings when they were approved, but upon being signed the minutes were each posted within one business day.
11The Respondent acknowledged a delay in posting the minutes of the March 24, 2022 board meeting, which were made available on MaxCondoClub on May 30, 2022. The Respondent asserted that all relevant minutes were available on the MaxCondoClub site.
12The Respondent also argued that the Agreement was ambiguous about the appropriate timeframe for posting minutes that needed further amendment prior to being signed and posted on MaxCondoClub. It stated that sometimes extra time is needed to make copies of the final minutes available for signature by the Board following the approval of amended minutes. It suggested that the Agreement should be interpreted to mean that such minutes are to be posted within seven days of the amended minutes being prepared and signed.
13In support of this, the Respondent’s condominium manager, Ms