Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
De Lint v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 9 - 2023 ONCAT 65 - 2023-05-03
Corporation:
DCCC 9
Date:
2023-05-03
Summary:
In the case of De Lint v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 9, 2023 ONCAT 65, the applicant sought access to certain records from Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 9 (the "Respondent") as a director. The applicant claimed that this access was necessary for her fiduciary duties on the board. However, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) issued a Notice of Intent to dismiss the application, stating that the CAT lacked jurisdiction to address the issues raised by the applicant. The CAT found that the applicant's request for records was related to her role as a director and not her interests as an owner, thus falling outside the CAT's jurisdiction, as per Ontario Regulation 48/01. Consequently, the CAT dismissed the case under Rule 19.1 of its Rules of Practice. No submissions were received from the applicant in response to the Notice.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Dismissal Order
Access to Records
Verdict:
Quick Verdict/Lesson:
In the case of De Lint v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 9 (2023 ONCAT 65), the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) dismissed an application for access to records as it fell outside the CAT's jurisdiction. The applicant, a director of the condominium corporation, sought records to fulfill their duties but did not request them in their capacity as an owner. The CAT ruled that issues related to a director's role are beyond its jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between requests made as an owner and those made in a director's capacity.
Takeaways:
Key takeaways from the case of De Lint v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 9 (2023 ONCAT 65) include:
The Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) can dismiss cases under Rule 19.1 of its Rules of Practice if it determines that it lacks the legal authority to decide the dispute, as defined by the Ontario Government's regulations.
In this case, the dispute revolved around access to condominium records related to a board's decision not to enforce a by-law. The applicant, who was also a director of the condominium corporation, sought this information to fulfill their duties as a director.
Section 13.3 of Ontario Regulation 48/01 under the Condominium Act, 1998, specifies that the right to examine records applies only when the request is solely related to the person's interest as an owner.
Disputes related to condominium management misconduct fall under the jurisdiction of the Condominium Management Regulatory Authority of Ontario (CMRAO).
The CAT's jurisdiction is limited to issues directly related to an owner's interest, and cases that involve director's duties are outside its scope.
In this case, the CAT dismissed the application due to its jurisdictional limitations.
Recommendations:
Clear Understanding of Jurisdiction: Parties involved in condominium disputes should have a clear understanding of the jurisdiction of the CAT. It's essential to determine whether the dispute falls within the CAT's mandate as established by the Ontario Government. Understanding jurisdictional boundaries can help parties choose the appropriate forum for their specific issues, avoiding unnecessary legal proceedings.
Distinguish Roles and Interests: Parties, especially directors of a condominium corporation, should distinguish between their roles as directors and their interests as unit owners when dealing with disputes. If a request for records is related to fulfilling duties as a director, it may fall outside the CAT's jurisdiction. Parties should be aware of the specific contexts in which their requests or disputes arise and choose the appropriate avenue for resolution.
Consult Relevant Regulatory Authorities: When condominium disputes involve allegations of misconduct or issues that are beyond the CAT's jurisdiction, parties should be directed to the relevant regulatory authorities. In this case, allegations of condominium management misconduct were deemed the responsibility of the Condominium Management Regulatory Authority of Ontario (CMRAO). Parties should be aware of the appropriate agencies or bodies to address their specific concerns and seek guidance accordingly.