Navigating use of Technology and Artificial Intelligence in the Condominium Industry
The integration of technology into condominium board governance is accelerating, offering new efficiencies and challenges for directors and managers as they are now grappling with the complexities of digital notetaking, meeting recordings, and the (sometimes uninvited) participation of smart software. The adoption of this nascent technology carries substantial and often overlooked risks, particularly concerning privacy, confidentiality, and accuracy. In Ontario, recent tribunal decisions provide some guidance, but ambiguity persists in translating technological adoption into everyday corporate practice.
Meeting Recordings and Record Issues
Under section 55 of the Condominium Act 1998 (the Act) and O. Reg. 48/01, a “record of the corporation” includes documents and information “relating to the affairs of the corporation” that the corporation is required or chooses to keep. Therefore, a meeting recording can fall within that definition if it serves the corporation’s ongoing management functions and is retained by or for the corporation.
The Condominium Authority Tribunal (“CAT”) in Kent v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 268 held that a video recording of an owners’ meeting was a record because it had been “…created and maintained by the corporation, for a purpose related to the ongoing role of managing the corporation.” However, we must note that the CAT made it clear that whether a recording is a record of a corporation depends on why and by whom it was created. If it was created for the corporation’s use, and the corporation keeps or controls it, it may be a record; if not, it might not be a record of the corporation.
The CAT clarified in Bogue v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 288, 2024 ONCAT 154, that recordings kept by a third-party provider, not deliberately retained by the board, may not become official records of the corporation.
Based on the above, an audio/video recording may not form part of the corporation’s records if it was created automatically by the platform and the corporation does not use the same to govern or manage its affairs. In a scenario where the corporation neither “creates” nor “keeps” the recording within the meaning of section 55 of the Act, it would likely not be obliged to produce it under a records request.
On the other hand, if the Board or the Property Manager explicitly directs the recording to be made and the file is stored in the corporation’s official record system or maintained by its agent (such as management), it might well be viewed as a corporate record.
Additionally, even if a recording of a Board meeting does qualify as a record of the Corporation, owners’ access to it is not guaranteed. It would be considered a non-core record (as opposed to the minutes of a Board meeting over the past 12 months, which are “core records”). Furthermore, the corporation is entitled and, in most cases, required to redact information that falls within the statutory exemptions (per Section 55(4) of the Act). The required redacting can apply to legal advice, information about actual or anticipated litigation, identifiable information about other units or owners, and information about personnel matters. To that end, if a video recording is a record of the Corporation, the owner may only be entitled to examine it by reviewing the record, as opposed to obtaining a copy.
Data Privacy Concerns, Bots, and the “AI Guest” Problem
Additionally, as we all might have observed, there is a significant rise in AI note taking websites/apps, AI generated summaries, etc. This might seem convenient at first glance but also raises privacy concerns. When a recording of a meeting is uploaded to a third-party AI platform, a corporation effectively relinquishes control over that information. The fine print in most service agreements grants the AI provider ownership of your data, which can mean that sensitive discussions about finances, legal strategy, and resident issues may no longer be under the Corporation’s control.
Furthermore, the most immediate concern arises when AI bots or automated notetaking tools quietly “join” meetings to record and summarize discussions, often without the full awareness or consent of all participants. These bots can appear as attendees without explicit consent, capturing private deliberations about legal matters, finances, and owner disputes. In many cases, the data is transmitted to third-party servers beyond the control of the condominium corporation, raising serious privacy concerns as well as implications about the Board’s legal duty to safeguard confidential owner information.
Even more troubling, some AI tools automatically install browser extensions or meeting “assistants” that activate without approval creating serious privacy and cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
“Hallucinations” Syndrome
Additionally, the use of AI tools for meetings, notetaking and other governance purposes presents a significant risk arising from the demonstrated unreliability of current technology. These systems are susceptible to a well-documented flaw known as “hallucination,” whereby the AI produces outputs that appear coherent and authoritative but contain fabricated facts, actions, or even non-existent legal citations. This poses a direct threat to the integrity of corporate records. The consequences for condominium governance can be serious.
For example, while drafting Board meeting minutes, there is a possibility that, if AI is used to draft meeting minutes, it may incorrectly record motions that were never proposed, misattribute votes, or distort the rationale for significant expenditures. Should board decisions later be reviewed by a court or the Tribunal, such inaccuracies can severely undermine the board’s credibility and the legal validity of its actions. Where the reliability of corporate records is paramount, introducing technology known to generate false information carries substantial risk.
Whilst we are talking about “hallucinations”, a recent case, Janssen v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1851, illustrates this concern, although more in an adjudication proceeding. Here, an owner relied on AI to prepare his arguments, but the submission was riddled with “hallucinations” fake legal citations and misstated Condominium Act references. The Tribunal found the submission inadequate and dismissed the application while clarifying that careful, accurate argument is mandatory. Parties who use AI without thorough oversight risk outright dismissal and financial consequences.
In Vasina v. York Condominium Corporation No.486, the CAT directly confronted the misuse of AI in condominium proceedings, noting that the self-represented owner had relied on “cases” and statutory requirements that simply did not exist and were likely generated by an artificial intelligence tool. The Tribunal stressed that “it cannot accept or rely on arguments that flow from imaginary cases and statutory requirements,” and confirmed that all parties, including those using AI, remain responsible for ensuring their materials are true, accurate, and relevant to the issues in dispute.
To tackle these issues, the CAT has introduced its Practice Direction on AI, which mandates parties to disclose AI use in all submissions, verify accuracy against original sources, and protect privacy throughout the CAT Process.
Conclusion and Way Forward
As digital tools become more embedded in condominium governance, both owners and boards must recognize that convenience does not outweigh accountability. Owners expect transparency and lawful governance. However, this need has to be balanced with the need for confidentiality.
Technology that records, transcribes, or automates decision-making can unintentionally create corporate records, expose confidential information, and undermine the purpose of board meetings as forums for candid discussion. Furthermore, “hallucinations” occur in varying circumstances, including when you are just doing research on a specific topic.
Given the concerns and risks, we recommend as follows:
- Condominium corporations should exercise restraint: avoiding routine recordings, prohibiting unauthorized AI tools, ensuring minutes remain concise and human-reviewed.
- If using virtual tools or AI, the Corporation should adopt clear internal policies that govern data control, retention, and deletion.
- It is very important, when reviewing an AI summary, to ensure that you double check all source references to ensure that the information provided is true
Responsible governance in the digital age requires not only embracing innovation, but doing so in a way that preserves privacy, accuracy, and the legal integrity of the corporation’s records.
Stay tuned to Condo Law News to keep up to date on the latest developments on condominium law!
