An Interesting Recent Decision about Records Requests

In the case of Jalbout v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 272, the owner had requested various records. The Tribunal held that the owner was not entitled to a large number of the records identified in the Request for Records, but that the owner was entitled to some of the requested records.

Among other things, the Tribunal held as follows:

Some of the owner’s requests constituted “fishing expeditions”, and the Corporation was therefore not obligated to provide those requested records.  The Tribunal provided the following definition of a “fishing expedition”: 

Casting a wide and imprecise net in the hopes of discovering some anticipated but unspecified issues or errors that might or might not exist.

The Tribunal said that the following requested records fell into this “fishing expedition” category, based on the broad, non-specific descriptions and lengthy time periods covered by each request:

1. Board meeting meetings from December 20, 2017, to February 10, 2023.
2. “All approved alterations to common grounds” from January 1, 1982, to February 10, 2024 – an over forty-year period.
3. Invoices for all expenditures and work performed, from January 1, 2019, to February 10, 2024.
4. Condominium returns and Notices of Change filed with the CAO, from January 1, 2019, to February 10, 2024
5. Various requested emails from January 1, 2019, to February 10, 2024.
6. Board meeting invitations from January 1, 2019, to February 10, 2024.

The Tribunal said:

“The Applicant should have been clearer and specific in the first place and requested only such records from such periods of time and in relation to such matters as she could reasonably identify as being directly relevant to her valid concerns. Not having done so, and given the evidence before me, I find that these requests qualify as fishing expeditions, as that term is explained above.”

• On the other hand, the Tribunal held that the owner was entitled to receive complaints relating to the owner’s unit from December 20, 2017, to February 10, 2024, and the “Investigative report findings” for her unit, from January 1, 2019, to February 10, 2024.

The Tribunal said:

“Although the periods of years covered in these requests are broad, the fact that these records relate directly to the Applicant’s own unit gives them a more narrow and precise focus and makes it reasonable that she should have, and want to have, copies of them. The same fact also means that they should be readily identifiable by the Respondent. During this hearing the Applicant also explained that the investigative reports she seeks are, more specifically, “documentation justifying the charges added to my [common expense] account in the absence of a court order or judgement,” which may serve to further narrow the scope of the Respondent’s production of relevant records.”

The Tribunal therefore ordered the Corporation to provide these records, “subject to appropriate redactions in accordance with subsection 55 (4) of the Act” (the Condominium Act). The Tribunal went on to say that: The Respondent will need to determine whether and what bases for redaction apply and will need to provide the Applicant with the statements required under subsection 13.8 (1) of Ont. Reg. 48/01 when delivering this set of records to the Applicant.

So in summary, when dealing with a request for a complaint, the condominium corporation will need to determine what sort of redacting is needed (before the complaint is provided to the person making the request).

Stay tuned to Condo Law News to keep up to date on the latest developments on condominium law!