Condominium Authority Tribunal
Date: April 17, 2025 Case: 2024-00089N
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Roger Bilodeau, Member
The Applicant: Nick Turco, Self-Represented The Respondent: York Region Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1273, Represented by Justin McLarty, Counsel
Submissions: March 6, 2025 to March 21, 2025
MOTION ORDER
A. OVERVIEW
1Following a hearing in this matter, the Tribunal released its decision on February 28, 2025, which was then posted on the Tribunal and websites. Under the provisions of section 1.48 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) and section 2 of Ontario Regulation 179/17 to the Act, the Tribunal is required to make available to the public any order which it issues, without charge and in a searchable database on the internet.
2Mr. Turco now brings this motion to have his name redacted from any publication of that decision.
3For the reasons set out below, I find that Mr. Turco has not demonstrated that his interests in having his name removed from the published decision outweigh the principle that the public should have full access to decisions of the Tribunal, including the names of the parties.
B. ISSUE & ANALYSIS
4Mr. Turco has requested that his name should “remain anonymous from the public records”. The first argument in support of his motion is based on the alleged hostile nature of one of the occupants of the unit above his and his view that over the years, that occupant has used threatening or aggressive language when he has been approached by York Region Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1273’s (“YRSCC 1273”) security services about Mr. Turco’s complaints of unreasonable noise emanating from that occupant’s unit.
5A second ground for his request is that he fears that his name or address could be searchable by third parties and that his involvement in this case could affect or damage his professional reputation. Finally, Mr. Turco argues that the value of his unit could be negatively affected if he wanted to lease or sell or his unit, to the extent that potential buyers or lessees could be deterred because of the conduct of the occupant in the unit above his.
6For its part, YRSCC 1273 did not offer any submission on this motion, despite having had the opportunity to do so.
7Turning now to an analysis of the issue in this matter, there can be no doubt that it turns on balancing the public interest in open courts, including public access to decisions of courts and administrative tribunals such as this one, versus an individual’s interests in privacy. As a starting point, Canadian courts have consistently held that the open court principle is inextricably tied to the rights guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it applies to administrative tribunals as well as to courts: see for example the case of Toronto Star v. AG Ontario, 2018 ONSC 2586. In addition, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25 has established the test for an order of confidentiality as sought by way of this motion. The Supreme Court of Canada referred to that test and to circumstances which would allow a decision-maker to rebut the presumption in favour of the open court principle by stating as follows at paragraph 33 of that decision:
A court can make an exception to the open court principle, notwithstanding the strong presumption in its favour, if the interest in protecting core aspects of individuals’ personal lives that bear on their dignity is at serious risk by reason of the dissemination of sufficiently sensitive information. The question is not whether the information is “personal” to the individual concerned, but whether, because of its highly sensitive character, its dissemination would occasion an affront to their dignity that society as a whole has a stake in protecting.
8In addition, I must be guided by the CAO Policy on Access and Privacy (‘Policy’) and the relevant considerations for granting a confidentiality order,