top of page
White Columns
< Back

Petrovic v. York Condominium Corporation No. 60 - 2022 ONCAT 49 - 2022-05-13






In the case of Petrovic v. York Condominium Corporation No. 60, the issue revolved around the extent of redactions made to condominium records and their adequacy, as well as the refusal to provide access to certain records. The applicant requested information related to flooding and water damage in their condominium. The tribunal found that the records had been adequately provided but ordered the respondent to explain the basis for each redaction in accordance with legal requirements. While the applicant believed the redactions were too extensive, the tribunal emphasized that records must align with the Condominium Act's intent rather than individual preferences. The respondent was not found liable for a penalty, and the tribunal ordered them to reimburse the applicant's filing fees.


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


In this case, the tribunal ruled that while redactions in condominium records can be appropriate to protect sensitive information, they must be explained as required by the Condominium Act, 1998. The respondent was ordered to provide statements explaining the basis for each redaction. The records were considered adequate if they fulfilled the Act's requirements, even if the owner found them inadequate for their specific purpose. Administrative errors in providing records should be corrected promptly, and in this case, the respondent's delay was attributed to such an error. Filing fees may be reimbursed to a successful party as per tribunal rules, and the respondent was ordered to reimburse the applicant's fees. The case emphasizes transparency and compliance with the Condominium Act when dealing with record requests.


Redactions and Adequacy of Records: This case highlights the importance of understanding the extent of information redactions in condominium records, balancing them with the requirements of the Condominium Act, 1998. The tribunal determined that redactions can be appropriate, but they must align with the Act's intent.

Requirement for Explanation: Condominium corporations must provide explanations for each redaction in records, as mandated by the Act. Failing to do so can lead to disputes and potentially additional orders by the tribunal.

Owner's Request Intent: Owners' requests for records should align with the purposes outlined in the Act. While owners may have specific motivations, records must fulfill the corporation's duties and obligations.

Prompt Correction of Errors: Administrative errors in providing records can occur, but prompt correction of these errors can prevent penalties or disputes. The tribunal acknowledged that the respondent corrected the error promptly.

Cost Reimbursement: Successful parties in tribunal cases may be entitled to cost reimbursement, including filing fees, as per the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.


Compliance with Statutory Requirements: Condominium corporations should ensure strict compliance with statutory requirements when responding to record requests. This includes providing requested records within the specified time frames, as required by the Condominium Act, 1998, to avoid potential disputes.

Transparency and Explanation: When redacting information from records, it is crucial for the condominium corporation to provide clear and comprehensive explanations for each redaction. This transparency helps owners understand the basis for redactions and promotes trust and accountability.

Timely Corrections of Errors: Administrative errors, such as delayed provision of records, should be promptly corrected when discovered. Timely responses to owner requests and proactive rectification of errors demonstrate good faith and adherence to the law.

bottom of page