top of page
White Columns
< Back

Greasley v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 55 - 2021 ONCAT 33 - 2021-04-19






In the case of Greasley v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 55, the applicant sought access to specific condominium records, mainly board meeting minutes, with a focus on a playground issue. The main dispute was related to the scope and method of redaction of the minutes provided by the respondent. The applicant claimed that the respondent failed to provide the required written explanations for the redactions, as mandated by the Condominium Act and Regulations.

The tribunal found in favor of the applicant, ordering the respondent to provide written statements explaining the redactions. Additionally, the tribunal imposed a penalty of $650 on the respondent for the delay in providing records without reasonable excuse. The applicant was also awarded $200 in costs for fees paid to the tribunal.


CAT Decisions - Decision
Access to Records
Adequacy of Records
Entitlement to Records
Fees, Costs, Penalties


In this case, the Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the condominium corporation had failed to comply with regulations by not providing written statements explaining the redactions made to requested board meeting minutes. The corporation's delay in providing records without reasonable excuse led to the imposition of a penalty of $650, and the applicant was awarded $200 in costs for the fees paid to the tribunal. This case underscores the importance of transparency and compliance with regulations in providing records to unit owners in condominiums.


Compliance with Regulations: Condominium corporations are obligated to adhere to the Condominium Act and its associated regulations, ensuring transparency in providing records and information to unit owners.

Redaction Requirements: The case highlights the importance of following proper redaction procedures when providing records to unit owners. Condominiums must provide a written statement explaining the reasons for redactions, as mandated by Section 13.8(1)(b) of the Ontario Regulation 48/01.

Timely Response: Condominium corporations should respond promptly to requests for records, as significant delays can be considered a refusal to provide records without reasonable excuse, potentially resulting in penalties.

Imposition of Penalties: Tribunals have the authority to impose penalties on condominium corporations when they refuse to provide records without reasonable excuse. These penalties serve as a deterrent for future non-compliance.

Cost Reimbursement: Successful applicants may be entitled to cost reimbursement for fees paid to the tribunal but should not expect reimbursement for legal expenses unrelated to the specific case.


Ensure Compliance with Regulatory Requirements: Condominium corporations should make sure to comply with all regulatory requirements when responding to requests for records from unit owners, especially when it comes to redacting information from documents. The case highlights the importance of providing clear and adequate explanations for any redactions made, as mandated by the Act and regulations.

Timely Responses to Requests: Responding to record requests in a timely manner is crucial. Delays in providing requested records, even if they are eventually provided, may be considered a refusal if not accompanied by a reasonable excuse. To avoid penalties, condominium corporations should make a concerted effort to meet the prescribed timeframes for record provision.

Transparent Communication: Condominium corporations should strive for transparency in their communication with unit owners. Transparency not only builds trust but also helps avoid disputes. Ensuring that unit owners have access to the information they are entitled to can help maintain a positive relationship between the corporation and its members.

bottom of page