CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Laurie Sanford, Member
The Applicant, Achille Parisone Self-Represented
The Respondent, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 447 Represented by Carol Thompson, Agent
Hearing: Written Online Hearing – April 6, 2026 to May 27, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. INTRODUCTION
1Mr. Achille Parisone is a unit owner in Peel Condominium Corporation No. 447 (“PCC 447”). He is requesting records from PCC 447 related to its decision to replace his exclusive use common element lawn (the “Front Lawn”) and charge him $1,570.70 for the resodding. He seeks the records supporting PCC 447’s decision to charge back this amount to his unit together with records relating to PCC 447’s maintenance of the Front Lawn before its replacement.
2PCC 447 says it has provided Mr. Parisone with all the records it has related to these matters. Mr. Parisone says he does not believe that, in part because he submits that there are suggestions pointing to the existence of other records, including photographic records. In an email to Mr. Parisone, PCC 447’s president, Judith Martin, referred to “reporting” from its lawn contractor as to the cause of the damage to the Front Lawn. In a subsequent letter, she refers to “documentation” from PCC 447’s lawn contractors about the maintenance of the Front Lawn. PCC 447 now says that neither the report nor the document were written. The decision to replace the Front Lawn and charge Mr. Parisone for it appears to have been based on conversations the president of the PCC 447 board had with the condominium manager.
3Based on the evidence before me, some of what Mr. Parisone seeks are not PCC 447 records. For example, he refers to photographs taken by the lawn contractors. While those might be records of the contractor, there is no evidence that they were provided to PCC 447. Therefore, they are not records of PCC 447. Nor is PCC 447 obliged to keep the sort of unit-specific records which Mr. Parisone is requesting. PCC 447 says no further relevant records exist and I find that there is no persuasive evidence of them. PCC 447 is not obliged to produce records which do not exist.
4On the issue of whether PCC 447 maintained adequate records of its decision to replace the sod on the Front Lawn and to charge Mr. Parisone for it, I conclude, for the reasons set out below, that it did. The records which do exist are adequate to permit PCC 447 to meet its obligations under the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) and are adequate to inform Mr. Parisone of PCC 447’s reasons for the actions it took. Having said that, it is concerning that PCC 447 suggested to Mr. Parison that it had records from the lawn contractor about its decision when, in fact, the decision was apparently the result of an internal conversation rather than being based on any formal record.
5Under the circumstances of this case, I am ordering PCC 447 to pay Mr. Parisone $200 in recompense for the filing fees he paid to the Tribunal. No other order will be made.
B. ISSUES & ANALYSIS
6On October 20, 2025 Mr. Parisone requested the following records from PCC 447:
Maintenance, inspection and repair records (exclusive use patio lawn);
Irrigation and lawn-care logs relevant to unit 102;
Records relating to the Board’s decision to replace the sod for unit 102;
Records relied upon in deciding to replace the lawn and apply the chargeback;
Internal communications, including emails and meeting minutes, concerning the decision, and,
Written responses to [Mr. Parisone’s] correspondence dated May 22, May 29 and June 30, 2025.
7The parties agreed that the issues to be decided in Stage 3 – Tribunal Decision in relation to these records are as set out below. I will consider related issues together.
Is Mr. Parisone entitled to the above records, or any of them?
Has PCC 447 refused to provide the above records, or any of them, without a reasonable excuse?
Is PCC 447 keeping adequate records as required by subsection 55 (1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, (the “Act”) with specific reference to the requested records?
Should PCC 447 be assessed a penalty under subsection 1.44 (1) 6 of the Act for a refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse?
Should either party be awarded any costs?
What other orders, if any, should the Tribunal make?
Issue 1 - Is Mr. Parisone entitled to the above records, or any of them?
Issue 2 - Has PCC 447 refused to provide the above records, or any of them, without a reasonable excuse?
8The records Mr. Parisone requests relate to a decision by PCC 447 to re-sod his Front Lawn and charge him for it. PCC 447 takes the position that the re-sodding was necessary because his dog’s urine damaged the newly sodded grass. Mr. Parisone is of the view that the re-sodding was necessary because the lawn was not properly maintained after the new sod was laid.
9The declaration of PCC 447 provides that the condominium corporation is responsible for the maintenance of the common elements, including the Front Lawn. Section 10, item 7 of PCC 477’s rules and regulations states:
No pet shall be permitted to soil or damage any part of the common elements. In the event of same, the owner of the pet shall make good such damage and save the Corporation from any connected expenses.
10PCC 447 has provided Mr. Parisone with the minutes of the board meetings where the decision was taken to replace the Front Lawn and charge him. It has provided him with a quotation from its lawn contractor for the work that refers to “Highly contaminated lawn due to dog urine”. It has also provided the contracts it has with the lawn contractor. PCC 447 says it does not keep unit-specific records of lawn maintenance, including watering. However, it says that if there had been irrigation issues, they would have affected an entire irrigation zone, not merely Mr. Parisone’s Front Lawn. PCC 447 submits that it has no further records on this matter.
11Mr. Parisone does not believe this. He suggests that other records must exist because:
There are records that were explicitly referenced but not produced;
There are records that would be reasonably expected to exist that were not provided;
No unit-specific, contemporaneous records that support the decision have been produced; and
No evidence has been provided demonstrating that a reasonable search for relevant records was conducted.
12Concerning Mr. Parisone’s submission that explicitly referenced records were not produced, Ms. Martin made an unaffirmed statement. It is noteworthy that this statement was made in supplementary disclosure and in response to specific questions by me. Her statement may be summarised as follows.
13On May 21, 2025, Ms. Martin wrote to Mr. Parisone saying:
As you may recall, the sod in this area was recently fully replaced by the condominium corporation. Unfortunately, it has again sustained significant damage. We had our landscape company investigate to ensure there were no insects or other pests that might have caused the problem, and they reported that it was due to pet urine.
14Ms. Martin now states that she was at her cottage at the time of this letter, “so any information I had to prepare the letter would have been verbal”. She is unaware “of any written documentation from the landscaper that we had in our possession at that time”. She does not refer to any conversation or other verbal basis for her letter. She says:
Since my balcony overlooks his terrace, I had seen the appearance of his lawn earlier in the season. I had actually taken a photograph of his lawn from my balcony of May 15, 2025 at 7:18 pm showing a lawn with many dead patches, consistent with a pattern caused by dog urine. See the photo attached.
I was also aware that his dog spent a lot of time on the terrace as it would regularly bark at me and my dog when we went out for our bedtime walk. It seemed logical to me that this was most likely the cause of the damage.
15On May 22, 2025, Ms. Martin wrote to Mr. Parisone and said,
I have investigated the irrigation issue and have documentation that the irrigation system was investigated at the time and found to be fully functional. Furthermore, our experience with Edick [the landscape maintenance company] is that they will not plant in an area that does not have adequate irrigation.
16Ms. Martin now says that the information she had as the basis of this letter was oral. It appears to consist of a conversation she had with Carol Thompson, the condominium manager of PCC 447. Ms. Martin says that Ms. Thompson assured her that “the irrigation system was working as it should.” Ms. Martin says that no unit-specific records for irrigation or fertilization are kept. Records are kept for lawn maintenance on a zone basis. Her position is that if one sprinkler in a zone was not working, it would affect the pressure on other areas served by the zone. Her conclusion was that since all the other sprinklers in the zone were fine, “it was clearly not a deficiency in the sprinkler system that caused the damage. Also, the pattern of damage was not consistent with irrigation deficiency.”
17Ms. Martin also provided a fragment of a draft letter written by the landscape contractor to Mr. Parisone on November 6, 2025, after Mr. Parisone’s records request. The letter was never sent. The letter purports to report on the basis of the contractor’s conclusion that the damage to the lawn was caused by dog urine. I conclude that the letter fragment is not a record, for several reasons. The full text of the letter was not provided, the letter itself is a draft and it was never sent. It is also relevant that the letter was written after the decision was made and after the records request was sent to PCC 447.
18Ms. Martin’s reference in her May 2 letter to a report from the lawn contractor might refer either to an oral or written report. I accept her statement that it was oral. Ms. Martin in her May 22 email refers to documentation from the lawn contractor. The clear implication is that there is a written document. That reference, whether intentionally or not, was misleading as no written documentation exists.
19There are also minutes of a board meeting that addresses the decision to re-sod the Front Lawn and charge the cost to Mr. Parisone. The minutes of the May 28, 2025 board meeting state:
The sod in unit 102 requires replacement, as their dog has damaged the existing sod.
The owner has been sent a bill for the full cost of this repair.
The owner is unhappy about this and wants the corporation to pay for it.
The Rules and Regulations of the Condo clearly state, that the owner is responsible to pay for any damage of this kind.
The Board's final decision is that Edick will do the work and the owner will pay for it.
20PCC 447 also produced a May 15, 2015 quote to the board from its lawn contractor which reads “Highly contaminated lawn due to dog urine – to remove the poor sod and dispose. Supply soil to grade and re sod area in inner courtyard of [Mr. Parisone’s unit] $1295.”
21Mr. Parisone is correct in saying there were references by Ms. Martin to records and documentation that were not produced. However, I accept Ms. Martin’s explanation that the reports and documentation she referred to were not written.
22Concerning Mr. Parisone’s contention that there were records that might reasonably be expected to have existed, that were not produced, I will address that submission below in the consideration of whether PCC 447 kept adequate records of its decision to re-sod the Front Lawn and charge Mr. Parisone for it.
23Mr. Parisone submits that no unit-specific, contemporaneous records that support the decision to re-sod the Front Lawn have been produced. It is not necessary for a condominium corporation to keep unit-specific records of its lawn maintenance for those records to be adequate. The question is whether, in the absence of such records, PCC 447 has kept adequate records and that will be dealt with below.
24Although Mr. Parisone is not satisfied that there is evidence that PCC 447 has searched and not found any further records, the simpler explanation is that there are no records to find. I accept PCC 447’s statements that it has now produced all the records there are.
25I conclude that while Mr. Parisone was entitled to the records he has received, PCC 447 has produced all the records it has and is not obliged to produce records that do not exist.
Issue 3 - Is PCC 447 keeping adequate records as required by subsection 55(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, (the “Act”) with specific reference to the requested records?
26Mr. Parisone submits that PCC 447’s disclosure consists “primarily of general contracts, narrative explanations and after-the-fact materials that do not establish what records, if any, were relied on at the time the decision was made.”
27Mr. Parisone’s characterisation of PCC 447’s disclosed records is supported by the evidence. Apart from the general contracts, the May 15 quotation from the lawn contractor and the minutes of a board meeting, which occurred after the decision was made, there are no contemporaneous records that PCC 447 can produce to explain the decision that it made. Subsection 55(1) of the Act requires a condominium corporation to keep “adequate” records. The question is whether PCC 447 has kept adequate records of this decision.
28The Tribunal has consistently held that the standard of adequacy is not perfection. The relevant considerations include whether the records are adequate to permit the condominium corporation to fulfill its duties and obligations under the Act and to permit a unit owner to have those duties and obligations performed. The duties and obligations of PCC 447 in this case were to maintain the common elements and to enforce its rules. The governing documents of PCC 447 establish that it is PCC 447’s responsibility to maintain the Front Lawn and Mr. Parisone’s responsibility to pay for damage to the Front Lawn that are caused by pet urine.
29From the perspective of a unit owner, the Tribunal has repeatedly found that the board of directors is authorised to make decisions on behalf of the collective, on condition that the affairs and dealings of the condominium corporation and its board of directors are an open book to the unit owners. In this case, that means that Mr. Parisone is entitled to PCC 447’s records about the decision to re-sod his Front Lawn and charge him for it. He may not be satisfied with the records. He may disagree with the decision. But that does not mean that the records are not adequate.
30Mr. Parisone submits that there are no unit-specific records that might support the decision to re-sod. This is true but it is possible to have adequate records that are not unit-specific. For example, I accept Ms. Martin’s explanation that the irrigation records, which were kept on a zone basis, were adequate to determine if there was an irrigation issue affecting any one unit because the effect on the water pressure to the other units in the zone would have been sufficient to determine the problem.
31Mr. Parisone submits that there are records that might reasonably be expected to exist but do not. He points to photographs taken by the lawn contractor but not produced. Those photos would not necessarily have been records of PCC 447. They may have been used by the lawn contractor but not provided to PCC 447. Moreover, records may be adequate even if they appear, to an interested party, to be incomplete. For example, it was not necessary for there to have been a written report from the landscaping contractor about why they concluded that the damage to the sod was caused by Mr. Parisone’s pet. It is sufficient that the written quotation contains the contractor’s conclusion that the soil was contaminated by dog urine. I conclude that, taken together, the quotation and the minutes of the board meeting which addressed the issue are “adequate” records within the meaning of the Act. They serve as a record of the decision and the reason for it.
32Mr. Parisone appears to be seeking records that offer an objective justification for the decisions PCC 447 made. But that is not the test of what constitutes an adequate record. Here, the two records which PCC 447 has produced, the contractor’s quotation and the minutes of the board meeting are adequate to understand the actions taken by PCC 447 and the reason for them. However, I note with concern that PCC 447 suggested to Mr. Parison that it had records from the lawn contractor about its decision when, in fact, the decision was apparently the result of an internal conversation rather than being based on any formal record.
Issue 4 - Should PCC 447 be assessed a penalty under subsection 1.44 (1) 6 of the Act for a refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse?
33On the question of whether PCC 447 should be assessed a penalty for a refusal to provide records without a reasonable excuse, Mr. Parisone cites the case of Surinder Mehta v Peel Condominium Corporation No. 389, 2020 ONCAT 9, for the proposition that in some cases, records may be so inadequate as to attract a penalty under subparagraph section 1.44 (1) 6 of the Act which reads that at the end of a hearing, the Tribunal may make:
An order directing a corporation that is a party to a proceeding with respect to a dispute under subsection 55 (3) to pay a penalty that the Tribunal considers appropriate to the person entitled to examine or obtain copies under that subsection if the Tribunal considers that the corporation has without reasonable excuse refused to permit the person to examine or obtain copies under that subsection.
34The Surinder Mehta case deals with the situation where the condominium corporation’s failure to maintain adequate records of basic responsibilities, such as records of board minutes, was so pervasive as to raise concerns about whether the condominium corporation understood its duty to maintain records. The Tribunal concluded that a penalty was appropriate to draw the condominium corporation’s attention to its record-keeping obligations. That is not the situation here. PCC 447 did maintain records of its contract with the lawn maintenance contractor, the quotation from the contractor and its board meeting that relate to the re-sodding. It also produced records of invoices from the contractor. I conclude that this is not an appropriate case for a penalty.
Issue 5 - Should either party be awarded any costs?
Issue 6 - What other orders, if any, should the Tribunal make?
35Mr. Parisone is not seeking costs, although he does request that PCC 447 repay him for the fees he paid to the Tribunal to bring this application.
36Under Rule 48.1 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, where the Tribunal makes a final decision, the unsuccessful party will be required to pay the successful party’s Tribunal fees unless the member decides otherwise. In this case, Mr. Parisone’s application to the Tribunal did result in PCC 447 producing additional records. It also resulted in a clarification that the grounds for Ms. Martin’s decision to re-sod the Front Lawn and to charge Mr. Parisone for it were not written reports but rather her assessment of the situation and an internal conversation with Ms. Thompson. Based on Ms. Martin’s letter and email to him of May, 2025, Mr. Parisone was justified in believing that there were reports that had not been provided to him. Under the circumstances, it is appropriate that PCC 447 pay Mr. Parisone $200 for the filing fee he paid to the Tribunal.
37PCC 447 made the following submission.
The corporation has spent many hours answering and investigating all accusations and demands. This board should be awarded the retaining of the chargeback amount plus $3,000.00 to cover the time that has been spent reviewing and reviewing the same demands.
38It appears from PCC 447’s submission that it is not requesting its legal costs of this application. Rather, it is requesting two remedies. First, that it be permitted to retain the charge-back amount that is the foundation for the dispute between the parties. However, the scope of this application did not include a consideration of the chargeback and both parties were reminded of this at the outset of the hearing. Therefore, PCC 447’s request cannot be entertained.
39Concerning PCC 447’s request that they be compensated for responding to Mr. Parisone’s requests, it is not clear on what basis PCC 447 is claiming these costs. They are not supported by any detail nor do they appear to be a claim for damages. In any case, it is relevant to note that had PCC 447 been candid with Mr. Parisone about whether the “reports” and “documentation” Ms. Martin referred to in her May, 2025 correspondence with Mr. Parisone were written or oral, this application might have been resolved before it reached Stage 3 – Decision. Moreover, it is not usually appropriate for the Tribunal to award a condominium corporation its costs for responding to the “accusations and demands” of unit owners. PCC 447’s request for compensation is denied.
C. CONCLUSION
40PCC 447 kept adequate records of its decision to re-sod the Front Lawn and charge Mr. Parisone for it. It is not obliged to provide Mr. Parisone with records which do not exist.
D. ORDER
41The Tribunal Orders that PCC 447 pay Mr. Parisone $200 on account of the amount he paid the Tribunal to bring this application.
Laurie Sanford
Member, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: June 1, 2026