03/07/2020 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 71 published on 01/09/2020
Tribunal orders disclosure of settlement agreement, despite confidentiality provision. Tribunal also orders a penalty for improper refusal to provide ledgers.
This case dealt with a few requests for records (by the owner). I summarize the following aspects of the decision:
- The owner requested a settlement agreement (between the corporation and the Declarant) respecting the corporation’s claims in relation to the first-year budget under Section 75 of the Condominium Act. Based on legal advice, the corporation had refused to provide the settlement agreement because it contains a confidentiality provision. The Tribunal ordered that the settlement agreement be disclosed. The Tribunal said:
The confidentiality clause in the settlement decision, in this instance, cannot take precedence over the disclosure requirements of the Act to shield it from disclosure to a unit owner for whose benefit the s.75 proceeding was initiated.
In closing submissions, the Respondent stated that if the Tribunal was to find that the Applicant is entitled to the record, that the Applicant be ordered to keep the settlement agreement confidential and not disclose it to other individuals. In reply submissions, the Applicant responded affirmatively to this response. In the circumstances, I will so order.
- The owner requested certain ledger entries and various pages from the corporation’s general ledger. The corporation had refused on the grounds that the requested records are not core records. But the owner was also entitled to non-core records (albeit on different terms). The Tribunal ordered that the records be disclosed (subject to the owner paying appropriate costs for the records). The Tribunal also ordered the corporation to pay a penalty of $1000. The Tribunal said:
Regarding the general ledger, requested on October 9th and the 11 specific ledger entries requested on September 25th, the Respondent’s answer to both these requests, in emails dated December 6th was that these were not core documents and could not be supplied. This answer was very clearly incorrect and not a reasonable excuse for the refusal. While I note that during the course of this proceeding, the Respondent stated it would provide these records, there was a refusal without a reasonable excuse, and a penalty is warranted. The reason offered displayed a lack of understanding of basic obligations under the Act.
Emerald PG Holdings Ltd. v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporatio No. 2519