Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Heading 5
Choose your role:
McNulty v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1553 - 2021 ONCAT 106 - 2021-11-11
Corporation:
MTSCC 1553
Date:
2021-11-11
Summary:
This case involves an application by a unit owner, requesting information from the Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No 1553 regarding the number of owners grandfathered under smoke-free rules. The corporation denied the request, citing privacy concerns. The main issue addressed by the Condominium Authority Tribunal is whether the applicant is entitled to the requested information. The Tribunal determines that the applicant is not entitled to the records since they do not currently exist and ordering their creation would not be warranted. The decision also clarifies the interpretation of the Condominium Act in relation to owners' rights to examine or obtain copies of records, particularly records relating to specific units or owners.
Under:
CAT Decisions - Decision
Access to Records
Entitlement to Records
Fees, Costs, Penalties
Verdict:
the quick verdict of the case of McNulty v Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No 1553 is that the applicant's request for access to records regarding grandfathered owners under the smoke-free rule was denied by the Condominium Authority Tribunal due to the non-existence of the requested records. The lesson here is that the Tribunal will not order the creation of a record that does not currently exist, and parties are responsible for their own costs in such matters.
Takeaways:
Privacy Concerns: The case highlighted the issue of privacy concerns when it comes to access to records in a condominium corporation. The Respondent denied the applicant's request for information, citing the right to privacy of other unit owners. The decision sheds light on the interpretation of the Condominium Act in relation to accessing records that contain personal information about specific units or owners.
Interpretation of Grandfathering: The term "grandfathering" was a point of discussion in the case, with the Tribunal acknowledging its problematic nature but using it for consistency with the parties' usage. The decision clarifies that the applicant was seeking aggregated data, not specific information about individual units or owners. It emphasizes the distinction between accessing aggregate records that do not reveal specific details and accessing information about a specific unit or owner.
Order on Record Creation: The Tribunal ruled that it will not order the creation of a record that does not currently exist. Since the requested records did not exist at the time of the request, the applicant was not entitled to them. This highlights the principle that the Tribunal can only make decisions based on existing records and cannot compel the creation of new records.
Recommendations:
Prior to making a request for records, applicants should ensure that the information they are requesting actually exists. In this case, the applicant requested records that did not presently exist, and as a result, her request was denied.
Clear definitions and guidelines should be established to determine what constitutes personal information about specific unit owners and the circumstances under which such information can be accessed by other unit owners. This would help avoid disputes and confusion around the applicability of exceptions to the right of owners to examine or obtain copies of records.
More robust cybersecurity practices should be put in place to safeguard sensitive information and protect the privacy of unit owners. This includes implementing measures such as encryption, multi-factor authentication, and regular data backups, among others.