Condominium Authority Tribunal
Date: November 28, 2025 Case: 2025-00741R Citation: Clegg v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 382, 2025 ONCAT 196
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Ian Darling, Chair
The Applicant: Jeff Clegg, Self-Represented The Respondent: Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 382
Written Submissions: October 20, 2025 to October 30, 2025
DISMISSAL ORDER
1The Applicant submitted an application indicating that a Periodic Information Certificate (“PIC”) was inadequate. The application did not follow from a request for records but was submitted after the Respondent delivered the PIC to owners following the required disclosure process.
2After reviewing the application, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (the “Notice”) the Application because of concerns about whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this dispute. The Notice proposed to dismiss the Application under Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice for the following reasons:
The Applicant filed a records case about the “types of records the condominium corporation is keeping”. The dispute is about a PIC, its contents and accompanying documentation.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is set out in Ontario Regulation 179/17. It can consider records‑related disputes pertaining to s. 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”). Section 55 establishes Information Certificates are records of the corporation that can be requested by owners. The Tribunal can consider issues related to access and retention of the PICs.
The requirement to create PICs is established in s. 26.3 of the Act, and the required content of the PIC is further clarified in s. 11.1 of Ontario Regulation 48/01. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider disputes with respect to s. 26.3 of the Act.
The basis of the application appears to relate to the information and perceived discrepancies found in these documents. The dispute in this case is about the contents of the PIC. This is not something the Tribunal has the authority to decide on.
3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the case. The Applicant responded to the Notice. The response pointed to inadequacies with the PIC but did not answer the question raised by the Tribunal about jurisdiction.
4Issues related to the accuracy and adequacy of the PICs have been addressed in prior cases involving these parties1. Although the specific deficiencies identified in this application are slightly different, it is an example of the Applicant introducing issues and grounds (with slight variation) that have previously been decided. The applicant has previously been cautioned about improper use of the Tribunal, and this dismissal should be considered a further caution against improper use of the Tribunal.
5I conclude that the application should be dismissed because the Tribunal does not have the legal authority to decide disputes about the accuracy and content of the PICs.
ORDER
6The Tribunal orders the case dismissed.
Ian Darling Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: November 28, 2025