Georgakopoulos v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2338, 2026 ONCAT 92

Condominium Authority Tribunal

Date: May 22, 2026 Case: 2025-00926R Citation: Georgakopoulos v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2338, 2026 ONCAT 92

Order under section 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Member: Brian Cook, Member

The Applicant: Peter Georgakopoulos, Self-Represented

The Respondent: Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2338, Represented by Nasrudin Mumin, Counsel

Hearing: Written Online Hearing – February 6, 2026 to May 4, 2026

REASONS FOR DECISION

A. INTRODUCTION

1This case concerns a request for core records, filed on October 7, 2025, by Peter Georgakopoulos, an owner of a unit in Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2338 (“TSCC 2388”). When no response to his request was received, Mr. Georgakopoulos filed this application with the Tribunal. He sent TSCC 2388 the requisite three notices of the case, but the corporation did not join the case. The Tribunal determined that TSCC 2388 was in default and the case proceeded to Stage 3 – Tribunal Decision in the Tribunal’s process. Shortly after that, TSCC 2388 did join the case through its representative, Nasrudin Mumin.

2During the Stage 3 process, TSCC 2388 provided the requested records that exist. The request for records included a request for Board meeting minutes for the period October 2024 to October 2025. TSCC 2388 advised that there were no Board meeting minutes for that period because the Board did not hold a meeting in that time but rather made decisions by email and so there were no Board meeting records to be produced.

3The issues in this case are:

1. Did TSCC 2388 provide access to the records requested by Mr. Georgakopoulos?

2. Are the records that have been provided “adequate” within the meaning of s. 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”)?

3. Should TSCC 2388 be required to pay a penalty and if so, in what amount?

4For the reasons that follow, I find that although TSCC 2388 did provide access to the records that exist, it did so only after Mr. Georgakopoulos commenced this application. I find that there are issues related to the adequacy of some of the records, but these relate to governance issues that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with. I find that a penalty of $2,000 is appropriate because the corporation effectively refused to provide the records and provided no explanation for not responding to the request for records until the application had been commenced.

B. LEGISLATION

5Subsection 55 (1) of the Act requires condominium corporations to maintain “adequate records”.

6With some exceptions (not applicable in this case) s. 55 (3) of the Act provides that the corporation shall permit an owner to examine or obtain copies of certain records, including core records.

7Subsection 13.3 (6) of Ontario Regulation 48/01 (“O. Reg. 48/01”) provides that the corporation must respond to a request for records within 30 days.

8Subsection 1 (1) of O. Reg. 48/01 lists records that are “core” records. All of the records requested by Mr. Georgakopoulos are core records.

9Subsection 1.44 (1) 6 of the Act provides that if the Tribunal considers that the corporation has without reasonable excuse refused to permit the person to examine or obtain copies of records that the person is entitled to examine or obtain, the Tribunal may order the corporation to pay a penalty to the person.

C. ISSUES & ANALYSIS

Did TSCC 2388 provide access to the requested records?

10It is not disputed that Mr. Georgakopoulos delivered a Request for Records form on October 7, 2025. The corporation did not respond to that Request. It did not respond to three follow‑up messages from Mr. Georgakopoulos before he filed this application. It did not join the Tribunal case after it received the requisite three notices of the case until it had been found in default. It did join the case on February 5, 2026, shortly after the hearing process had started.

11After TSCC 2388 joined the case, the parties agreed that the first priority was to ensure that Mr. Georgakopoulos received the records he had requested and was entitled to. There was some discussion about whether the parties could agree on a resolution of all of the issues, but this did not lead to a settlement.

12TSCC 2388 did not dispute that Mr. Georgakopoulos is entitled to the records he requested and by March 23, 2026, Mr. Mumin provided the corporation’s response to the original request, and copies of the existing records that had been requested. There was a continuing issue about the lack of Board Minutes and Periodic Information Certificates (“PICs”), discussed below.

13Mr. Mumin asserts that the Corporation “always intended to provide the Applicant’s requested core records that exist,” but provides no explanation for why there was no response to the request and no records were provided until after the application had been filed, and no explanation for why there was initially no response to the three notices of the case that were delivered to the corporation.

14As Mr. Mumin notes, after he became involved, the corporation did engage in the process and provided the requested records that exist.

15I find that TSCC 2388 did provide the records that exist and that were requested.

Issues about PICs

16The request for records included a request for PICs issued in the one‑year period before October 7, 2025. TSCC 2388 provided two PICs, dated November 15, 2024, and June 20, 2025. These were in a format that was difficult to open. After attempts to change them to a different format that Mr. Georgakopoulos could open, I directed Mr. Mumin to provide a paper copy which he promptly did. I find that TSCC 2388 was not at fault regarding issues about the format of the PICs.

17Mr. Georgakopoulos submits that the PICs provided are not adequate because they do not clearly disclose the name and licence number of the condominium manager and assistant property manager. Mr. Mumin submits that TSCC 2388 provided the name and address for service for the property management company and that this was all that is required.

18Under s. 16.1 of O. Reg. 48/01, the information that a corporation is required to provide is specified in the PIC form. The PIC form asks for “the condominium manager, management provider, or any other person responsible for management of the property.” I agree with Mr. Mumin that this requirement was satisfied by providing the condominium management company name and its address for service.

19Mr. Georgakopoulos asserts that he has never received a PIC in the ordinary course as an owner. He suggests that the two disclosed PICs were generated after the fact and only because of this application.

20In his submissions, Mr. Mumin characterizes Mr. Georgakopoulos’ contention about the PICs as a “bald assertion” which the corporation “unequivocably rejects.”

21The allegation that as an owner Mr. Georgakopoulos has never received a PIC is not a bald allegation. It is a statement of his evidence of his experience as an owner. TSCC 2388 has not provided any evidence to refute this evidence.

22Section 26.3 of the Act requires that PICs be issued “at least once every three months or at such other time periods as are prescribed.”

23The allegation that PICs have not been regularly issued could reflect on how the corporation is governed. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with allegations about governance issues.

Board Minutes

Issues

24The request for records included a request for minutes of Board meetings for the period October 2024 to October 2025. The corporation advises that there are no minutes of Board meetings in this period because there were no meetings of the Board. Certain decisions were made by email.

25Section 27 of the Act provides that the “board of directors shall manage the affairs of the corporation.” To do this, it must hold meetings and maintain minutes of decisions made at those meetings.

26Section 35 of the Act concerns meetings of the Board. Subject to the corporation’s by‑laws, s. 35 (5) of the Act permits Board meetings by telephonic or electronic means. Subsection 35 (7) of the Act provides that such a meeting “must provide that all persons attending the meeting are able to communicate with each other simultaneously and instantaneously.” TSCC 2388 does not argue that these provisions permit decisions to be made by email.

27There have been previous decisions of the Tribunal dealing with situations where a Board met but did not maintain adequate minutes. Sidhu v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 426, 2022 ONCAT 112, is one such case and the following was noted at paragraph 12:

Condominium corporations cannot operate in accordance with law without holding board meetings where resolutions are duly passed and every condominium bears a strict, clear, and ongoing statutory duty to keep adequate records of such meetings; i.e., minutes. The lack of board meeting minutes is a significant breach of the Act and introduces uncertainty as to the authority of the condominium’s transactions and affairs, impacting fundamental rights of unit owners to have access to a record of the condominium’s key decisions, including decisions relating to budgets, enforcement actions, banking arrangements, and contracts for services. The lack of board meeting minutes cannot be considered either acceptable or reasonable.

28In the present case, not only were there no minutes, but there were also no meetings. It appears that the first time the Board held a meeting after October 2024 was in January 2026.

29As part of its disclosure of the requested records during this proceeding, TSCC 2388 provided a copy of minutes of a Board meeting held on January 7, 2026. It does not reference any of the decisions made by email.

30The minutes of the January 7, 2026 meeting include the following notation:

Management reviewed the changes in standard protocols within the property management office. It was recommended that the Corporation hold monthly meetings.

31The disclosure also included minutes of an Annual General Meeting held on December 10, 2025. According to the minutes, the audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2024 were presented and approved.

32If the statements were for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2024, there may be a question of why these statements were presented over a year later. There may also be a question of what happened to financial statements for the year ending October 31, 2025, and how those statements may have been approved by the Board since it did not meet during that fiscal year. However, these questions go to governance and are beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

33After the disclosure that the Board had not met and instead made decisions by email, Mr. Georgakopoulos asked me to order disclosure of the emails in which decisions were made. Mr. Mumin opposes that request, arguing that emails are not records for the purpose of s. 55 of the Act.

34In a letter to Mr. Georgakopoulos from Mr. Mumin, dated March 23, 2026, Mr. Mumin indicates the following:

The Corporation’s proposed resolution at its next Board meeting to retroactively authorize the Board’s approvals made by email between October 7, 2024 to October 7, 2025 reads as follows: On a motion made by the board of directors, it was resolved to retroactively ratify the following approvals from the board of decisions made by email from October 2024 to October 2025:

• Legal enforcement and chargeback against Unit [redacted in accordance with sections 55(4)(b) and 55(4)(c) of the Condominium Act, 1998] for an altercation in the recreation dining room on May 24, 2025 (emails dated between to June 30, 2025)

• Legal enforcement and chargeback against Unit [redacted in accordance with sections 55(4)(b) and 55(4)(c) of the Condominium Act, 1998] for pool dec violation (e.g., loud music, smoking) on June 23, 2025 (emails dated between June 24, 2025 to July 31, 2025);

• Revised quote from SmartCCTV for the REC Camera System Installation (emails dated July 16, 2025 to July 22, 2025);

• New Rule #27 – Elevator Misuse (emails dated July 28, 2025); and,

• Processing invoices from Marciano Development – Change Orders #1 and #2 invoices (emails dated July 28, 2025).

35Mr. Mumin submits that these decisions will become a record when they are retroactively approved at a proper meeting of the Board.

Conclusions

36The above noted issues raise a number of serious issues. Most of these relate to governance issues, including the failure to hold meetings, lack of clarity about how financial reports are approved, and making decisions by email.

37As noted earlier, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with governance issues except as they relate to the adequacy of records.

38It is clear that emails are not an adequate record of decisions of the Board (see Kai Sin Yeung v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1136, 2019 ONCAT 11). TSCC 2388 appears to now acknowledge this and has proposed that the solution is for the Board to retroactively approve the decisions made by email. The minutes of the meeting where this occurs would then be the record.

39I agree that this may be the only appropriate solution to an unfortunate situation. It is not clear that this proposed meeting has occurred. I therefore direct as follows: TSCC 2388 shall advise Mr. Georgakopoulos of the date of the meeting of the Board at which the email decisions will be approved. If that meeting has already happened, TSCC 2388 shall provide Mr. Georgakopoulos with a copy of the minutes of that meeting. If it has not occurred, TSCC 2388 shall provide Mr. Georgakopoulos with a copy of the minutes of the meeting after is has occurred.

40Since the email decisions of the Board are not records of the corporation, I find that TSCC 2388 is not obliged to disclose them.

Penalty

Is a penalty warranted?

41Subsection 1.44 (1) of the Act sets out the things the Tribunal may order in a proceeding. Paragraph 6 of that section provides that 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.

42Subsection 13.11 (6) of O. Reg. 48/01 provides that a penalty shall not exceed $5,000.

43Mr. Mumin submits that in this case, the corporation did not refuse access because access was eventually granted.

44A delay in responding to a request for records will not always constitute a refusal to provide access to the records as there may be a reasonable explanation for the delay.

45In this case, the corporation has not explained why it did not respond to the request. It has not said whether the failure to respond was a conscious decision, due to inadvertence, or some other reason. The corporation has not established a “reasonable excuse”—it has in fact offered no excuse. It should not be necessary for an owner to file an application with the Tribunal in order to access records they are entitled to access.

46For these reasons, I find that a penalty is in order.

What should the penalty be?

47Mr. Georgakopoulos submits that the maximum penalty of $5,000 should be imposed.

48The purpose of s. 1.44 (1) 6 of the Act and when a maximum penalty should be imposed was discussed in Maxime Pedneault v Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 227, 2020 ONCAT 8 (“Pedneault”, paragraph 23):

The purpose of the penalty is to impress upon condominium corporations the seriousness of their obligations to comply with the provisions of the Act and to provide unit owners with a remedy when those obligations are not met. The maximum penalty is reserved for wilful misconduct or behaviour that is highhanded, intransigent or egregious.

49To be clear, the penalty provisions relate only to issues concerning access to records under s. 55 of the Act. The other issues I have raised including the adequacy of records are not relevant to the determination of the penalty.

50When an owner makes a legitimate request for records, the corporation has a duty to respond within 30 days of the request. That did not happen in this case. Neither was there a response to Mr. Georgakopoulos’ reminders of his request. There was then no response to this Tribunal application until this hearing had started. The corporation has not offered any explanation for why the records were not provided until this application entered Stage 3 of the Tribunal’s process.

51These circumstances suggest that it is necessary to impress upon the corporation the seriousness of its responsibilities to owners who make requests for records.

52However, I have also considered that after joining the case, the corporation did acknowledge that Mr. Georgakopoulos is entitled to the records he requested and facilitated his access to those records.

53In most cases where the Tribunal has ordered a penalty, the amount has been relatively small. More significant penalties ($1,200–3,000) have been ordered when the conduct has been found to be more “highhanded, intransigent or egregious,” to quote again from Pedneault. See for example: Jasper Developments Corp. v. York Condominium Corporation No. 82, 2022 ONCAT 4; Anvari v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 95, 2021 ONCAT 24; Tonu Orav v York Condominium Corporation No. 344, 2019 ONCAT 18; Abou El Naaj v. Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 935, 2021 ONCAT 4.

54In Surinder Mehta v. Peel Condominium Corporation 389, 2020 ONCAT 9, the maximum penalty of $5,000 was ordered because many records had not been maintained for several years, including records of Board meetings and Annual General Meetings and because access to existing records had been refused.

55In consideration of the apparent refusal to provide the requested records and the apparent failure to understand the corporation’s obligations concerning the right of owners to access records, but also balancing the delivery during the hearing of all existing records requested, I find that a penalty of $2,000 is appropriate.

D. COSTS

56Rule 48.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice provides that an unsuccessful party will generally be required to pay the successful party’s CAT fees. In this case, those were $150. TSCC 2388 is ordered to pay Mr. Georgakopoulos $150.

57Mr. Georgakopoulos suggests that he should also be compensated for the time he has spent in pursuing this matter. Rule 49.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice provides that the Tribunal will not generally order one party to pay another party compensation for time spent related to the Tribunal proceeding. While I appreciate that Mr. Georgakopoulos has spent considerable time pursuing this matter, I will apply the general rule and decline to award costs or compensation for time spent.

E. ORDER

58The Tribunal orders that:

1. Under s. 1.44 (1) 7 of the Act, TSCC 2388 shall advise Mr. Georgakopoulos of the date of the meeting of the Board at which the decisions made by email in the period of October 7, 2024 to October 7, 2025 will be approved. If that meeting has already happened, TSCC 2388 shall, within 7 days of the date of this decision, provide Mr. Georgakopoulos with a copy of the minutes of that meeting. If it has not occurred, TSCC 2388 shall provide Mr. Georgakopoulos with a copy of the minutes of the meeting after is has occurred.

2. Under s. 1.44 (1) 6 of the Act, within 30 days of the date of this decision, TSCC 2388 shall pay Mr. Georgakopoulos $2,000 as a penalty.

3. Under s. 1.44 (1) 4 of the Act and Rule 48.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, within 30 days of the date of this decision, TSCC 2388 shall pay Mr. Georgakopoulos $150, representing his Tribunal filing fees.

Brian Cook

Member, Condominium Authority Tribunal