The courts might have slowed down because of the pandemic, but the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) appears to be unaffected by the pandemic. The CAT is predominantly online with less rigid rules than traditional courts, so this makes a lot of sense. It is relatively easy for online processes to continue in most cases. Here are some of the highlights from the CAT this summer. Continue reading
Owners are entitled to examine records of the condominium. Subsection 55(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998, gives owners the right to examine or obtain copies of the condominium’s records, subject to certain limits described in subsection 55(4). Subsection 55(4) excludes certain records, including records related to other owners or units and records “relating to actual or contemplated litigation”. These provisions are designed to balance the competing interests of the owners and protect the condominium’s interests. Continue reading
In a recent decision the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) was asked to rule on an owner’s request for records. The owner requested several records, including audited financial statements, budgets, board meeting minutes, AGM minutes, the most recent PIC, by-laws, employment agreements with any directors, and management contract. The condominium suggested that many of the issues raised by the owner were due to the condominium being self-managed. Spoiler: this was not a reasonable excuse for not providing records. Continue reading
On April 11, 2019, I wrote about some of the Condo Authority Tribunal (CAT) decisions so far. Some of the highlights include the dismissal of claims that were vexatious, the adoption of the “open book” principle enumerated in previous case law, and confirmation that owners may access the list of owners. You can read the post here. The CAT has been busy since my previous post, releasing another 16 decisions in the last four months! Here are some of the highlights for these recent cases: Continue reading
Many condominiums have private sessions during board meetings where they discuss more sensitive issues involving unit owners, employees, or litigation. These are often referred to as “in-camera” sessions. Owners, apart from the directors and officers, would not be eligible to attend these portions of the meetings. Are owners entitled to access the minutes from in-camera sessions of the meetings of the board? A recent CAT decision answers the question. Continue reading
Can owners request copies of emails between directors? Can the condominium refuse a record request because the owner’s reason for requesting the records is apparently unrelated to their ownership interests? Must the owner prove their reason is related to their ownership interest, or is the onus on the condominium to prove the reason is unrelated to the owner’s interests? These are only a few of the questions recently answered by the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT).
Kai Sin Yeung v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Coporation No. 1136
An owner requested emails related to the renewal of a gas contract referenced in board meeting minutes. The owner wanted a penalty and costs of the hearing. The condominium claimed that the emails do not exist, but even if they existed the owner would not be entitled to them. Continue reading
The CAT released a decision confirming that owners are not entitled to receive email addresses provided by owners and mortgagees to the corporation. The case includes an interesting review of the relevant provisions of the Act and regulations related to the record of owners and mortgages and the exceptions to the right to examine records. The full case can be found on CanLii: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncat/doc/2019/2019oncat9/2019oncat9.html?resultIndex=3
Some highlights include: Continue reading
On April 5, 2019 I attended the ACMO / CCI 1-day Conference in Kitchener. I was asked to speak during the round table discussions and on the legal panel. My topic for the round table discussion was the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT). Today I thought that I would share some of the lessons that we have learned so far from the CAT’s first twenty or so decisions. Continue reading
Overall, people seem to be pleased with the CAT. The process is generally much quicker, easier, and cost-effective than Small Claims Court, which was the typical way of resolving record disputes before the CAT. Voluntary mediation was an option to resolve record disputes, but few used the process (despite its many advantages over court).
Many would like to see the CAT’s jurisdiction expanded in the near future to take on other matters, such as proxy and ballot disputes, requisitions, and liens. Unfortunately, the current government has not provided any details about its plans for the CAT. It could expand the jurisdiction, leave it as it is, or eliminate the CAT (the third option seems unlikely). We don’t know at this point. Continue reading
The CAT has been busy this month releasing three new decisions. Obviously, the issues relate to record requests. All three cases have some interesting commentary on the circumstances when the CAT will award legal costs and penalties.
Lahrkamp v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No.
932, 2019 ONCAT 4
The owner filed a claim with the CAT for records. Previously, the condominium obtained an order from the Superior Court of Justice to declare the owner a vexatious litigant. The CAT member found the owner’s claim vexatious and dismissed it. That was not the end of it. The condominium sought over $12,000 for costs of its involvement in the CAT hearing and $22,000 after further submissions were made! Continue reading