CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
Order under Section 1.41 (1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Ian Darling, Chair
The Applicant, Jeff Clegg Self-Represented
The Respondent, Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 382
Application review period: November 9, 2025 to December 1, 2025
DISMISSAL ORDER
1The Tribunal is dismissing this application filed by Jeff Clegg on intake under s. 1.41 (1) of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”), which states that:
The Tribunal may refuse to allow a person to make an application or may dismiss an application without holding a hearing if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the subject matter of the application is frivolous or vexatious or that the application has not been initiated in good faith or discloses no reasonable cause of action.
2Rule 19.1 of the CAT’s Rules of Practice provides additional guidance. It establishes that the CAT can dismiss an application at any time, including:
(a) Where a Case is about issues that are so minor that it would be unfair to make the Respondent(s) go through the CAT process to respond to the applicant(s)’s concerns;
(b) Where a case has no reasonable prospect of success;
(d) Where the Applicant(s) is using the CAT for an improper purpose (e.g., filing vexatious Applications);
3The Tribunal is dismissing Mr. Clegg’s application on its own motion without submissions from either party. This is an unusual step; however, this is the tenth application to the Tribunal filed by Mr. Clegg – including five in 2025. The grounds for dismissal are clear. It would be unfair to require the Respondent to reply to the application and would risk allowing the Tribunal to be used to frustrate or annoy the Respondent without a legitimate dispute to be adjudicated.
Issues so minor
4Mr. Clegg’s application was submitted because the Respondent included names of three different owners in the September 2025 Board of directors’ meeting minutes. None of the owners identified in the minutes are parties to the application. In the first instance, the name of an owner who requested records was included. In the second instance, the name of an owner who had made suggestions about how the condominium corporation functioned was identified as the source of the suggestions. In the third instance, the name of an owner who had agreed to assist the Board with a specific task was identified.
5Mr. Clegg’s application included three documents. The original set of minutes, correspondence between the Applicant and the Board, and a revised copy of the minutes.
6The application itself shows that after Mr. Clegg identified concerns with the minutes, the Respondent reviewed the minutes and made amendments. There is no dispute to adjudicate.
7Mr. Clegg’s position is that s. 55 (4) of the Act prevents including any owner’s name in the minutes. I recognize in dismissing this application, that the Tribunal will not decide if Mr. Clegg’s position that an owner’s name constitutes “records relating to specific units or owners” is correct. However, considering all the factors in this case, this would be a purely academic question and would not be in the public interest to allow it to proceed.
No Reasonable Prospect of Success
8Mr. Clegg did not make a formal records request. The application is based on concerns about the content of the minutes. Mr. Clegg asked for a penalty due to the Respondent’s practices. There is no basis for a penalty in this context. The CAT has the authority to award a penalty in a records case if a corporation has refused to provide a record without a reasonable excuse. There was no request, no refusal and no basis for a penalty.
9Mr. Clegg requested compensation for damages related to the alleged non‑compliance with the Act. Mr. Clegg’s name was not listed in the minutes. Even if there were an act of non‑compliance, Mr. Clegg is not entitled to compensation for damages as in accordance with s. 1.44 (1) 3 of the Act because there is no connection between Mr. Clegg and the alleged non‑compliance.
Improper Purpose
10Mr. Clegg’s application is about redaction of owners’ names from minutes. Two reported decisions where Mr. Clegg was a party1 have addressed aspects of this issue. In filing a new application about a similar issue, I find that Mr. Clegg is rolling over grounds and issues raised in prior CAT cases and incorporating them in new applications. This is an improper purpose that can also be considered as part of an assessment of vexatious conduct.
11Finally, this application seeks to have the Tribunal impose a specific standard, as determined by Mr. Clegg, for record keeping. Tribunal decisions have established that it is not the role of the Tribunal to decide how the corporation conducts its business, as long as the actions are reasonable and consistent with the Act. This dispute is about wording preference in one set of minutes. It is improper to file an application related to these issues.
12This decision should be read as a warning regarding the improper use of the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s Rules of Practice allow it to prevent the abuse of its process (see Rule 4.6) and allow it to dismiss cases at any time under certain circumstances, such as those where the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. Repeated attempts to use the Tribunal for improper purposes may result in the Tribunal taking steps to limit access to the Tribunal and/or orders of costs.
ORDER
13The Tribunal orders the application dismissed.
Ian Darling
Chair, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: December 1, 2025
Footnotes
- Clegg v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 382, 2024 ONCAT 186; Clegg v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 382, 2025 ONCAT 119