|
Condominiums - Periodic Information Certificates (PICs). Clegg v. Condominium Authority Tribunal
In Clegg v. Condominium Authority Tribunal (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this brought against two decisions of the Condominium Authority Tribunal where, respectively, "the first application .... on the basis that the application was outside its jurisdiction. It dismissed the second application on its own motion without submissions from either party because it found the application was trivial, did not have a reasonable prospect of success, and was brought for an improper purpose."
Here, respecting the first application ('jurisdiction'), the court considers the nature of 'Periodic Information Certificates' ('PICs'):First Decision Analysis
[29] The CAT reasonably dismissed Mr. Clegg’s application on the basis that it did not have the legal authority to decide disputes about the accuracy and content of PICs.
[30] The contents of a PIC are statutorily defined. Section 26.3 of the Act sets out the delivery and timing of PICs. The required content of a PIC is set out in s. 11.1 of General, O. Reg. 48/01 (the “Regulation”).
[31] It is not disputed that the CAT does not have the jurisdiction to consider disputes with respect to s. 26.3 of the Act, or s. 11.1 of the Regulation.
[32] Instead, Mr. Clegg asserts that the CAT’s decision to dismiss his application was not reasonable because the CAT can consider records related disputes pursuant to s. 55 of the Act. He argues that the accuracy of documents that fall within the scope of section 55 speak to their adequacy and are therefore properly before the CAT.
[33] In making this argument, Mr. Clegg conflates the statutory definition of adequacy with his subjective view of the appropriateness of the corporation’s decision making.
[34] Section 55 operates to identity the records necessary to adequate record keeping, setting out a non-exhaustive list of records to be kept at 55(1). Subsection 55(2) identifies how long records must be retained, and to whom they can be provided. These sections grant jurisdiction to the CAT to adjudicate disputes under s. 55(1)-(8), such as to whom and in what circumstances a condominium corporation can be compelled to provide its records. They do not grant jurisdiction to the CAT to determine substantive concerns within a corporation’s records from the subjective standpoint of a unit holder.
[35] As set out at paragraph 9 of Mariam Verjee v York Condominium Corporation No. 43, 2024 ONCAT 93, a case cited by Mr. Clegg, the standard for adequacy as defined in the statute “is not determined by each requester’s subjective views about what constitutes proper record keeping, but by an objective standard that considers whether the standard to which records are kept allows the corporation to fulfill its duties.” And at paragraph 10:[10] Further, the Tribunal’s records jurisdiction is to resolve and decide disputes related to Section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”). The Tribunal is not intended to replace the democratic governance of the corporation. The underlying issues in this case (and others involving the same Respondent) relate to how the corporation is managed and governed. The CAT can make orders to address the records issues, but questions of governance are left to the community to resolve. [36] Mr. Clegg misinterprets paragraph 28 of Mariam Verjee which describes a pattern of errors found by the CAT to have been made within the condominium’s various responses to Ms. Verjee’s request for records. Similar to the circumstances herein, Ms. Verjee asserted her complaint not as an entitlement to identified records, but “an analysis of the accuracy and adequacy of the records with the intent to prove that the corporation was not governed correctly.”
[37] In Marium Vergee, the CAT found that assessing the governance of a corporation was clearly outside its role and dismissed the complaint, providing only that the York Condominium Corporation No. 43 reimburse Ms. Verjee her tribunal fees of $300 and the $25 that she had incurred cancelling a cheque.
[38] Mr. Clegg similarly misinterprets the CAT decision in Yeung, which he points to as supporting his view that assessing the “adequacy” of records includes a substantive inquiry into the nature of the corporation’s decision making. Yeung is a decision arising from a unit owner’s request to view email correspondence related to a gas contract renewal that had been referenced within the Minutes of the Board. In that decision, the CAT ruled that emails between directors do not form part of records required to be maintained by the condominium. Mr. Yeung’s request was dismissed but for a term that he be paid $200 to reimburse him for his CAT application fee because the board had failed to respond to his initial request within the required 30-day timeframe.
[39] The decisions in Yeung and Mariam Vergee reinforce that while the CAT may rule on the corporation’s overall compliance with the requirement to maintain adequate records, the CAT does not have the legal authority to rule on the governance of the condominium.
[40] In summary, the legislature has specified the contents of a PIC in s. 11.1 of the Regulation. These include a copy of the corporation’s budget. A dispute over s. 11.1 requirements is not within the CAT’s jurisdiction. While complaints of a larger scale and important disputes about a corporation’s records practices may fall within the CAT’s jurisdiction under s. 55 the CAT does not have jurisdiction over the governance of a condominium board. The requirement of a corporation to keep “adequate” records in section 55 (1) speaks only to larger issues about the nature and extent of records that must be kept by a corporation, and not the details about the contents of records that go to governance issues.
[41] Section 55 cannot be read to give the CAT the jurisdiction to engage in the governance of a corporation by adjudicating a unit owners’ allegations of deficiencies within a PIC or here, to provide a forum to contest the contents of and the conclusions within a Reserve Fund Budget.
|
