Owner Not Entitled to Request Draft AGM Minutes or AGM Recording
In the case of King v. York Region Condominium Corporation No. 692, the owner requested draft minutes in relation to the 2019, 2020 and 2021 AGMs as well as the GetQuorum audio recording of the May 6, 2021 AGM.
The CAT determined that the owner was not entitled to access the requested records.
In relation to the AGM minutes, the CAT said that draft minutes are not records of the condominium corporation because they have not yet been approved by the owners.
In relation to the meeting recording, the CAT held that the owner’s reason (for requesting the recording) did not fall within the purposes of the Condominium Act, and therefore did not meet the “basic ‘test” underpinning the right to examine or obtain a copy of a record under Section 55”, as noted in Section 13.3(1) of Regulation 48/01. The owner’s reason for requesting the recording was to challenge the precise wording of the approved minutes, even though there was no suggestion that the final minutes were inadequate. The CAT said:
The evidence before me reveals that the interest engaged here is the Applicant’s
personal interest in seeing his own preferred wording reflected in the AGM
minutes, despite the fact that the minutes contain an adequate record of the
business transacted at the AGM. An owner is not entitled to insist that the wording of board or AGM minutes reflect how they believe it should be drafted. Requesting this record to “prove” what the Applicant believes to be the correct wording on about effectively minor details is not a request made by an owner having regard to the purposes of the Act.
The CAT also noted that the recording might not even become a record of the corporation, particularly if the recording is only provided to the minute taker as a “work product” to help the minute taker prepare the minutes.
In this case, the recording had also been provided to the condominium corporation’s Manager, and the CAT said that this “suggests that the audio recording is kept on behalf of
YRCC 692, which could, potentially, cause it to become a record of the corporation
to which an owner is entitled. And there may be fact circumstances in which the
Tribunal would make that finding.”
However, in this case the Tribunal was not required to grapple with the question – whether or not the recording was a record of the corporation – because the owner’s reasons (for requesting the recording) were not in keeping with the purposes of the Condominium Act (as described above).
In our view, this is a very helpful decision from the CAT. It confirms our firm’s approach, and our recommendations to our clients, when requests like this are made for the draft meeting minutes and/or any meeting recording. We agree that the draft meeting minutes are not a record of the corporation, and therefore should not be disclosed. Our approach, when we are involved in a meeting of owners, is to ensure that all owners are aware – at the outset of the meeting – that the recording will not form part of the records of the Corporation, and that any recording (of a meeting) will be made available only to the minute taker, to assist with preparation of the minutes – and not to the condominium corporation’s board of directors or manager. In our view, this reduces any potential argument that the recording could be a record of the corporation, and we are pleased to see that the CAT supports our approach.
Stay tuned to Condo Law News to keep up to date on the latest developments on minute keeping!