04/02/2026– Jurisdiction Ontario
Part 93 published on 01/03/2026
Corporation had not refused to provide requested records
This dispute involved a request for core and non-core records.
The Tribunal found that while some errors were made by management, the corporation eventually provided all records to which the owner was entitled. No records were refused without reasonable excuse. The Tribunal said:
While a corporation may choose to have a condominium management service provider deal with records requests, the ultimate oversight is the board’s. It is incumbent on the corporation to ensure that records requests are responded to in accordance with the Act. The fact that a corporation may choose to delegate the labour of the records request process to a condominium manager does not absolve the corporation of its responsibilities.
However, in this case, the evidence shows that the board did consider the request and gave appropriate instructions to the manager. While the corporation is expected to have oversight and to bear responsibility for any mistakes, in this case, it was not unreasonable to have assumed that the manager would carry out her duties and provide the records as per the board’s instructions. Additionally, some of the mistakes made were minor and all of them rectified when discovered. Thus, in this case, I am not prepared to find that the corporation did not take its legal obligations seriously, however I strongly encourage TSCC 2227 to pay more careful attention to its obligations and to ensure that responses to records requests are made (sic) accordance with the Act.
However, the corporation was ordered to refund a $180 fee charged for records that did not exist and to revise overly redacted board meeting minutes to ensure they only protected information reasonably likely to identify other owners. The Tribunal said:
Redactions made to satisfy s. 55 (4) (c) (of the Condominium Act, 1998) should be restricted to the information that is considered reasonably likely to identify another owner or unit. TSCC 2227 must also provide a new statement as required by s. 13.8 (1) (b) of O. Reg. 48/01 that explains the reason for each redaction and the indication of the provision under s. 55 of the Act or Regulation being relied on by the board.
Di Iorio v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2227, 2026 ONCAT 11