Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 551 v. Adam (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

An owner, Mani Adam, had made various requests for records and also had numerous communications with the condominium corporation about various issues.  Mr. Adam felt that that the condominium corporation had not properly responded to his requests to see records, and as a result he had brought a claim in Small Claims Court, seeking a penalty of $500 from the condominium corporation (pursuant to Section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998).  The condominium corporation felt that Mr. Adam’s numerous requests and demands were “oppressive”.  

The parties were able to reach an agreement respecting certain matters which the Court described as a “protocol pursuant to which the parties would exercise their rights and fulfill their respective obligations as condominium unit owner and condominium corporation”.   

However, the Court was asked to rule on three issues respecting which the parties could not reach agreement: 

1.                    The condominium corporation sought an order prohibiting Mr. Adam from communicating with the condominium’s directors except by letter.
2.                   The condominium corporation sought an order prohibiting Mr. Adam from communicating with third parties concerning the condominium.
3.                   Mr. Adam sought an order that he be permitted to make copies of condominium documents using his own scanner. 

The Court declined to make any of these orders. 

The Court’s decision included the following: 

• Although Mr. Adam’s behaviour was annoying and at times ill mannered, and although his suggestions were sometimes unreasonable, his conduct was not oppressive.
• The condominium corporation’s actions were also not oppressive.
• The photocopying charges demanded by the condominium corporation were “de minimus” (too small to be of concern to the Court).
• The right of Mr. Adam to see the corporation’s records – i.e. whether or not the condominium corporation had failed to meet those rights – would be determined by the Small Claims Court.  [However, the Court did say this much:  A condominium corporation cannot require the person to disclose his reasons for requesting information or for seeking to see the records.] [Editorial comment:  According to Section 55(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998, condominium owners may inspect the corporation’s records (apart from records listed in Section 55(4)) “for all purposes reasonably related to the purposes of this Act”.  Therefore, it seems to me that the purposes or reasons for the desired inspection are relevant and that the condominium corporation should accordingly be able to ask the owner to disclose those purposes.]