Sidhu v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 426 (Condominium Authority Tribunal) October 14, 2022

14/10/2022 – Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 80 published on 01/12/2022
Tribunal orders condominium corporation to produce records; and also orders condominium corporation to pay a penalty; and orders directors to take or retake mandatory training.

The Tribunal held that the condominium corporation had failed to produce, and in some cases had failed to create, records requested by the owner.  The Tribunal ordered the condominium corporation to make certain efforts to create required records, and to produce requested records.

 

The Tribunal also ordered the directors to take or retake mandatory training.  On this issue, the Tribunal said:

 

In this case, the Respondent’s submissions relating to their lack of board meeting minutes, the appearance of their record produced in relation to section 83 of the Act, and their apparent view that their delay in properly responding to the Applicant’s requests for records should be treated as inconsequential, together suggest a somewhat extreme degree of either neglect of, or failure to comprehend, some of the fundamental duties of condominium directors. 

It is in part, if not primarily, to ensure that all condominium directors have at least that basic level of understanding that they are required under the Act to complete mandatory training courses provided by the Condominium Authority of Ontario (CAO). It appears to me that this board may require a refresher. Therefore, under subsection 1.44 (1) 7 of the Act, I will order that each of the current board members takes or retakes the mandatory director training prescribed under subsection 29 (2) (e) of the Act within 30 days of the date of this decision. By the end of that 30-day period, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with evidence of completion. The directors are encouraged to also consider taking any advanced training course the CAO also provides, though I do not make this part of my order.

The owner also made a claim for damages for “pain and suffering”.  On this issue, the Tribunal said:

 

 I have carefully considered the Applicant’s request for compensation due to “pain and suffering”. The Applicant submitted various materials as evidence of neglected repair work, harassment, and nuisances which the Applicant alleges were caused or done by the Respondent directly as reprisal for the Applicant’s requests for records. In closing submissions, the Applicant cited section 137 of the Act regarding offences for which prosecution may be available and reiterated many general allegations regarding the Respondent’s conduct and non-compliance with statutory standards and obligations.

The evidence is reasonably compelling that certain incidents did occur that may represent an unfortunate animosity toward the Applicant on the part of members of the Respondent’s board or that are understandably interpreted that way by the Applicant; however, I do not find evidence that such incidents necessarily constitute reprisals for or relate in any other way to the Applicant’s requests for records or the Respondent’s failure to comply with its duties in regard to them. As such, these matters, as noted earlier in this decision, are outside the scope of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction and do not justify an award for compensation under subsection 1.44 (1) 3 of the Act in this case.

I wish to clarify for the Applicant and other potential applicants to this Tribunal who may read this decision, that general complaints about repairs and maintenance are not presently within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to address. Issues of harassment and general misconduct or non-compliance are also not within our ability to address unless occurring in relation to or arising out of a matter that is within one of our stated areas of jurisdiction in Ont. Reg. 179/17, as amended. The Tribunal’s remedies are restricted to those section in Part I.2 of the Act, and do not include the remedies specified under section 137 of the Act. In addition, while the conduct of condominium managers may be relevant to claims set out in applications at this Tribunal, complaints regarding managers in and of themselves are not properly heard by this Tribunal. Parties must be careful to ensure that matters outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are not included in their applications in a way that complicates the case or distracts from finding a resolution to the matters the Tribunal can address.

However, the Tribunal said:

 

The general authority of the Tribunal to make orders under subsection 1.44 (1) 7 of the Act, that “the Tribunal considers fair in the circumstances,” allows the Tribunal to address underlying issues as well as the more obvious claims (e.g., for costs or compensation) that parties may make.

 

The Tribunal also ordered the condominium corporation to pay a penalty of $3000.

Sidhu v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 426