CONDOMINIUM AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL
DATE: May 20, 2026 CASE: 2025-00916R Citation: Tavares v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 202, 2026 ONCAT 91
Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Member: Roger Bilodeau, Member
The Applicant: Ashley Tavares, Self-Represented
The Respondent: Peel Condominium Corporation No. 202, Represented by Tanya Buelow, Agent
Hearing: Written Online Hearing – February 23, 2026 to April 27, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. INTRODUCTION
1The Applicant, Ashley Tavares, is a unit owner of Peel Condominium Corporation No. 202 (“PCC 202”). She submitted a Request for Records (the “Request”) to PCC 202 on October 9, 2025.
2The Applicant requested:
Documentation relating to a rule or standard in relation to fencing requirements; and
Minutes and records documenting a decision by the board of directors (“Board”) of PCC 202 to deny her request under s. 98 (“s. 98 request”) of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”), during the period of September 1 to October 9, 2025.
In addition to and as a result of the above, the Applicant also questions the adequacy of designated records held by PCC 202.
3For its part, PCC 202 joined this proceeding, but its participation was limited to the following statement:
Available meeting Minutes and fencing regulation documents have been provided to Applicant. Condo management company acknowledged that they did send it after the deadline.
Notwithstanding the fact that PCC 202 was allowed every opportunity to do so, it did not offer any other submissions or evidence at any time during this hearing.
4The Applicant seeks a determination by the Tribunal that PCC 202 did refuse to provide the requested records without a reasonable excuse, as well as an order for PCC 202 to confirm whether records which are responsive to the Applicant’s Request do exist and, if so, to provide them. The Applicant also seeks an order for what the Tribunal deems appropriate in relation to the adequacy of designated records held by PCC 202, as required by s. 55 (1) of the Act. Finally, she seeks an order for the Tribunal to impose a penalty in an amount which the Tribunal deems appropriate, in accordance with s. 1.44 (1) 6 of the Act, as well as costs in the amount of $200 for her filing fees.
5For the reasons set out below, I find that PCC 202 has not shown a reasonable excuse for refusing to provide specific records to the Applicant but that it did have a reasonable excuse for not having provided a separate record. I therefore impose on PCC 202 a penalty of $500. I also award costs to the Applicant in the amount of $100.
6While I have reviewed all the submissions and evidence provided in this case, I refer only to those which are relevant to my decision.
B. ISSUES & ANALYSIS
7The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:
(i) Did PCC 202 refuse to provide records to the Applicant without a reasonable excuse? If so, (ii) is a penalty warranted against PCC 202, in accordance with s. 1.44 (1) 6 of the Act, and if so, in what amount?
Are designated records held by PCC 202 adequate, in accordance with s. 55 (1) of the Act?
Should there be an award of costs, and if so, in what amount?
Issue 1 (i): Did PCC 202 refuse to provide records to the Applicant without a reasonable excuse?
8As a starting point, it is useful to set out the following chronology of events:
On June 8, 2025, the Applicant requested documentation from PCC 202 in support of its position regarding an electronic message sent to the Applicant on June 6, 2025 that her backyard fence extended beyond the boundary of the exclusive-use area.
On September 11, 2025, PCC 202 issued an enforcement letter to the Applicant in regard to her backyard fence, referencing its governing documents as the basis for the fencing requirements. On the same day, the Applicant requested a copy of the governing documents in regard to those requirements.
On September 17, 2025, the Applicant submitted her s. 98 request to PCC 202 in relation to her fence.
On October 3, 2025, PCC 202 issued a letter to the Applicant, denying her s. 98 request, stating that the governing documents clearly limit rear yard enclosures to a maximum of twenty (20) feet and that this restriction must be enforced consistently for all units.
On October 8, 2025, the Applicant again wrote to PCC 202 to request documentation supporting PCC 202’s position in relation to its enforcement of the fencing requirements.
On October 9, 2025, the Applicant submitted her Request to PCC 202, seeking the following:
a. Records confirming the rule or standard establishing a 20-foot fence limitation; and
b. Meeting minutes for the period of September 1, 2025, to October 9, 2025, in relation to the decision of PCC 202’s Board to deny her request under s. 98 of the Act.
Between October 30 and November 26, 2025, the Applicant sent several follow-up communications to PCC 202 regarding the status of her Request and other matters. During that period, PCC 202 responded to other matters but did not address the Request.
On November 5, 2025, PCC 202’s condominium manager advised the Applicant that the fencing rule which it had referenced in prior correspondence was not in the governing documents but that it “represented a Board-approved modification standard established under section 98 of the Act.” The condominium manager then went on to apologize to the Applicant for having hastily directed her to the governing documents.
On December 1, 2025, the condominium manager stated in correspondence to the Applicant that PCC 202 was under no legal obligation to provide further proof of the Applicant’s non-compliance with the fencing requirements beyond its own “determination of the exclusive-use boundary and the non-compliance of the current fence.”
On December 10, 2025, the condominium manager sent an email to the Applicant, along with PCC 202’s response to the Request (“Response”), in the correct form, albeit after the deadline for a response to a request for records and after this application had been filed. In that email, the condominium manager apologized for missing the deadline in providing PCC 202’s Response and added the following:
I've attached the response, which was to be sent to you in mid-November. You will see in the document that the board e-signed the release on November 13th. It was an administrative mistake that prevented the documents from being issued. I apologize for this oversight.
Along with its Response, PCC 202 provided the following documents to the Applicant:
a. A document titled “FENCING EXTENSIONS, ENCLOSURES & GATES Requirements and Stipulations”, dated June 24, 2014; and
b. The minutes of the board meeting held on September 16, 2025.
The condominium manager stated in the same email that the only other Board meeting held during the period between September 1 to October 9, 2025 was on October 9, 2025 and that the minutes of that meeting had not yet been approved.
On December 11, 2025, the Applicant responded to the condominium manager, with the relevant segment stating as follows:
… this response does not satisfy my October 9 formal Request for Records.
On January 26, 2026, PCC 202 provided to the Applicant the minutes of its board meeting held on October 9, 2025.
9The Applicant’s submissions focused on PCC 202’s lack of compliance with the records request process and the absence of a reasonable excuse in refusing to provide the requested records in a timely manner. The only information received from PCC 202 is a brief statement that the Request was fulfilled and that its management company was responsible for having done so after the deadline.
10Having reviewed the evidence and submissions made by both parties, I find that PCC 202’s delay in providing the requested records—except in the case of the minutes of its Board meeting held on October 9, 2025—constitutes a refusal to provide them, for which it has no reasonable excuse.
11The Applicant made several requests for those records after filing her Request. I also note that PCC 202 and the Applicant communicated at various times on other topics after her Request had been filed and in spite of several requests by the Applicant, PCC 202 did not respond to her Request until December 10, 2025, which response was apparently ready on November 13, 2025 (although past the deadline of November 8, 2025) but was not sent to the Applicant due to an administrative mistake.
12In addition, the Applicant claims that PCC 202’s position, as expressed in correspondence from its condominium manager—that it was under no legal obligation to provide further proof of the fencing requirements—, supports a determination that there was a refusal to provide those records without a reasonable excuse.
13I have also taken note of the confusion caused by the message sent by the condominium manager on November 5, 2025 that there were no records in relation to fencing requirements in PCC 202’s governing documents, followed by its Response produced on December 10, 2025 which did contain a Board-approved document setting out fencing requirements. In sum, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is a case of ‘crossed wires’ as between PCC 202 and its condominium manager. As a final point, this Tribunal has stated in several cases that the ultimate responsibility for responding to a request for records lies with the condominium corporation, via its board of directors, as opposed to the condominium manager.
14In regard to the minutes of PCC 202’s Board meeting held on October 9, 2025, I accept PCC 202’s evidence that the minutes of that meeting were in draft form at the time of the Request. This Tribunal has decided in several prior cases that draft minutes do not constitute a record of a condominium corporation. As a result, the minutes of that meeting were not a record held by PCC 202 at that point in time and it therefore had a reasonable excuse to not provide that record. I also note that the approved minutes for that meeting were provided to the Applicant on January 26, 2026.
15In sum, this was a straightforward process involving two records which PCC 202 did not provide to the Applicant in a timely manner, mainly on account of internal mismanagement between PCC 202 and its condominium manager. Although there is no evidence that the delay in producing those two records was intentional, as PCC 202 did not provide any explanation for the delay other than what was included in its correspondence to the Applicant, I find that the delay was in effect a refusal without a reasonable excuse.
Issue 1 (ii): Is a penalty warranted against PCC 202, in accordance with s. 1.44 (1) 6 of the Act, and if so, in what amount?
16The Applicant submits that a penalty is warranted in this case, given the length of the delay in obtaining the requested records, the repeated follow-up communications required on her part to obtain the requested records, and the fact that in her view, the record(s) in relation to the fencing requirements in PCC 202’s governing documents have still not been provided.
17The Applicant also submits that various communications from PCC 202 and its condominium manager contributed to uncertainty regarding the existence and location of the requested records, requiring additional effort on her part to seek information about a record that was initially represented as being contained in the governing documents.
18The Applicant adds that a penalty toward the higher end of the allowed range under the Act would be appropriate. For its part, PCC 202 made no submissions in regard to this issue.
19Under s. 1.44 (1) 6 of the Act, the Tribunal may make an order directing a condominium corporation:
… to pay a penalty that the Tribunal considers appropriate to the person entitled to examine or obtain copies under [s. 55 (3)] if the Tribunal considers that the corporation has without reasonable excuse refused to permit the person to examine or obtain copies under that subsection.
20Under s. 1.44 (3) of the Act, the Tribunal has the authority to award a penalty of up to $5,000. Having found that there was no reasonable excuse in this case, I must now determine if a penalty may be appropriate. If I determine that a penalty is justified, the next question is to decide the appropriate amount that should be paid.
21The evidence in this case does show that there was confusion and lack of oversight as between PCC 202 and its condominium manager in regard to how a response to a request for records must be complied with and the requirement to provide records which should be made accessible to unit owners in a timely manner, as provided for by the Act. In addition, previous decisions of this Tribunal and of courts of justice have established the important role of board minutes as the corporate memory of a condominium corporation and to provide transparency into how the corporation is being managed.
22Whether a penalty is appropriate depends on the specific facts in each case. The imposition of a penalty may also serve as a reminder of a condominium corporation’s obligations under the Act; see for example the decision of this Tribunal in Yang v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2501, 2026 ONCAT 6. Considering the importance of the requested records to the Applicant in this case, I find that a penalty is justified.
23In assessing the amount of a penalty, the Tribunal considers the purpose of a penalty. A penalty may communicate to the interested public the type of conduct that is considered unacceptable. In previous decisions where the Tribunal considered situations where a condominium corporation advanced reasons for refusing to produce records, the Tribunal found that the reasons given did not constitute a reasonable excuse and imposed a penalty of $500; see for example Terence Arrowsmith v Peel Condominium Corporation No. 94, 2018 ONCAT 10 and Brigid Browne v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 94, 2019 ONCAT 1.
24In light of previous Tribunal decisions as to the amount of the penalty in a similar fact situation as in this case and the importance to the Applicant of the specific records that she requested, I have determined that a penalty of $500 is appropriate.
Issue 2: Are designated records held by PCC 202 adequate, in accordance with s. 55 (1) of the Act?
25The Applicant alleges that the records which were produced by PCC 202 on December 10, 2025—via its condominium manager—raise uncertainty as to whether PCC 202 has maintained adequate records relating to its fencing requirements and which it relied upon to enforce those requirements.
26The Applicant adds that the Board minutes provided in response to her Request do not appear to contain any evidence of a Board discussion or resolution relating to her s. 98 request. On that point, I do note that her request and PCC 202’s response were both made between PCC 202’s Board meetings held on September 16 and October 9, 2025.
27The Applicant also submits that PCC 202 initially represented that the rule relied upon in its enforcement communications was contained in its governing documents and directed the Applicant to review those documents. The Applicant was unable to locate the referenced rule and sought clarification on several occasions. As mentioned above, PCC 202’s condominium manager later advised that the rule was not contained in the governing documents but instead referred the Applicant to a Board-approved modification standard in regard to the fencing requirements.
28The Applicant therefore argues that the above circumstances demonstrate that PCC 202 has not produced records supporting the enforcement position which it relied upon and raises serious concerns as to whether the relevant records were properly created or maintained, in accordance with s. 55 (1) of the Act.
29I can appreciate the Applicant’s frustration with the position taken by PCC 202 in regard to its fencing requirements and the possible questions raised in the course of that process. On the other hand, this case is about access to records and whether some of those records are adequate for the purposes of the Act.
30In that regard, PCC 202 has produced the records—albeit in a dilatory manner—which it believes are responsive to the Applicant’s Request. A corollary question which arises is whether there are additional records which could apply to the Applicant’s situation. While it is unclear whether PCC 202 has actually provided all of the records that would respond to the Applicant’s request, it is equally unclear that it has not. The Applicant has not provided any evidence that such records exist, nor has she demonstrated any legal requirement that they should exist. In this case, I can only acknowledge that the Applicant’s belief that such a record may exist is supported by PCC 202’s carelessness in its communications. However, PCC 202 ultimately asserts that no such record exists, and I can see no basis to demand that it should.
31In sum, how the records provided to the Applicant by PCC 202 were interpreted by both parties is a governance- or communication-related question, but not a question which relates to the adequacy of records. For this matter to be an issue about adequacy, the Tribunal needs some indication of which records are not being kept adequately and some indication of why they ought to have been kept in accordance with the requirements of the Act. That conclusion also applies to the process by which PCC 202 arrived at its decision and wording of its s. 98 denial letter, being a governance matter. As a reminder, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction over governance issues. Therefore, I see nothing in the evidence which would lead me to believe that PCC 202’s records which are relevant to this case are inadequate.
32As a final point, it was wrong for the condominium manager and/or Board to refer the Applicant to documents that do not actually exist. However, that is a governance- or communication-related matter, as opposed to an issue of inadequate records. In closing, I can only suggest that PCC 202 should provide to the Applicant copies of any rule or governing document which provides for fencing requirements, or a written confirmation that such records either do not exist or were contained among the records provided to her on December 10, 2025.
Issue 3: Should there be an award of costs, and if so, in what amount?
33The Applicant has requested costs in the amount of $200 as reimbursement for her Tribunal fees. PCC 202 did not make any submissions in relation to costs.
34Subsection 1.44 (2) of the Act states that an order for costs “shall be determined in accordance with the rules of the Tribunal.” The costs-related provision of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (“Rules”) which is relevant to this case is the following:
48.1 If a Case is not resolved by Settlement Agreement or Consent Order and a CAT Member makes a final Decision, the unsuccessful Party will be required to pay the successful Party’s CAT fees unless the CAT member decides otherwise.
35The Applicant was partially successful in this case and in accordance with Rule 48.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules, I order the Respondent to reimburse to the Applicant the amount of $100 in Tribunal fees. I make no further order for costs in this matter.
C. ORDER
36The Tribunal orders that:
Under s. 1.44 (6) of the Act, PCC 202 must pay to the Applicant a penalty in the amount of $500, within 30 days of this decision; and
Under s. 1.44 (2) of the Act, PCC 202 must reimburse to the Applicant the amount of $100 in Tribunal fees, within 30 days of this decision.
Roger Bilodeau
Member, Condominium Authority Tribunal
Released on: May 20, 2026