top of page
White Columns
< Back

Manaj v. York Condominium Corporation No. 228 - 2023 ONCAT 57 - 2023-04-06


MYCC 228




The case of Manaj v York Condominium Corporation No. 228 was brought to the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) under the Condominium Act 1998. The applicant filed two applications alleging that the respondent breached a settlement agreement and failed to provide requested records. The CAT found that the applicant did receive the records she was entitled to and that the respondent did not refuse to provide records without a reasonable excuse. The CAT also concluded that the respondent did not breach the settlement agreement. No penalties were ordered, and no costs were awarded against either party.


CAT Decisions - Decision
Access to Records
Compliance with Settlement Agreement
Entitlement to Records
Fees, Costs, Penalties


a dispute between an applicant and York Condominium Corporation No 228. The decision of the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) was that the applicant received the records she was entitled to, the respondent did not refuse to provide records, and no penalties or costs were ordered. The lesson learned from this case could be the importance of clear communication and documentation regarding the exchange of records in a condominium dispute.


Takeaways from the case of Manaj v. York Condominium Corporation No. 228 (2023 ONCAT 57):

Compliance with Records Request: The Respondent in this case complied with the Applicant's requests for certain records, including the Ballot Data Report, Receipts Report, and Voting Report Signed by Scrutineers. The Respondent provided the records they had in their possession to fulfill the Applicant's requests.

Refusal of Records and Penalties: The CAT found that the Respondent did not unreasonably refuse to provide records, and therefore, no penalties were warranted. The Respondent made reasonable efforts to provide the requested documents.

Breach of Settlement Agreement: The case examined whether the Respondent breached the terms of a Settlement Agreement (SA), specifically related to the on-screen display of voting results and the role of scrutineers. The CAT determined that the Respondent had not breached the SA, as they had followed a reasonable interpretation of the SA's terms.

Costs Not Awarded: Neither party was awarded costs. Both the Applicant and Respondent contributed to delays in the case, and the CAT found that an order of costs was not appropriate.

Clarity in Agreements: This case highlights the importance of clear and unambiguous terms in settlement agreements and the need to manage owner expectations in condominium elections, especially regarding virtual voting processes.


Clarity in Settlement Agreements: Settlement agreements should be drafted with clarity to avoid disputes later on. Parties involved should seek legal advice when drafting such agreements to ensure that all terms and conditions are clearly defined, leaving no room for misinterpretation.

Communication and Transparency: Condominium corporations and management should make efforts to inform unit owners of the process involved in virtual meetings and elections, including the role of scrutineers and any limitations on their access to information. This transparency can help build confidence in the election process and reduce concerns and suspicions.

Efficient Handling of Disputes: Both parties in a dispute should aim for efficient communication and cooperation to avoid unnecessary delays in the hearing process. This may include promptly responding to requests and inquiries, adhering to established timelines, and minimizing the use of requests that do not contribute to the efficient resolution of the dispute.

bottom of page