Part 43 published on 01/09/13
Court dismisses owner’s claims respecting meeting minutes
The plaintiff owner claimed, under Section 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998, for the following:
- Production of the minute-taker’s personal notes from the corporation’s AGM;
- That the AGM minutes were inaccurate and the minute-taker’s draft minutes had been improperly revised by the Board;
- A penalty of $500.
The claim was dismissed. The Court said that “the notes of the note-taker are a work-product and not a record” for the purposes of Section 55. The Court said that the term “records” does not include “drafts, work in progress, rough copies, et cetera”.
The Court also said that the Board’s minor adjustments to the draft minutes were not improper. The Court added the following: “The minutes are intended to be an accurate summary of the events that took place not a verbatim transcript.”
The Court said that the plaintiff’s requests amounted, in this case, to a “pure fishing expedition, without evidence to support his suspicion of impropriety by the members of the board of revising, to their benefit, the minutes that were taken at the annual general meeting held on June 22nd, 2011.”
The Court awarded costs to the condominium corporation that were higher than the normal costs permitted in Small Claims Court.
[Editorial Note:
It seems to me that some types of draft documents – for example a draft reserve fund study – might constitute records of the corporation (depending upon the circumstances). But this case clearly stands for the proposition that draft minutes (from a minute taker) are not records of the corporation.]