In Sharma v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2510, the applicant, who is a director and owner in the corporation, brought an application before the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) with respect to records. He disputed having to pay a fee to obtain some records and took the position that he was entitled to records pertaining to all unit owners because of his position as a director.
This director’s position was that he was seeking the records in order to fulfill his duties as a director under section 37 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”).
The CAT asked for preliminary submissions at the commencement of Stage 3 related to whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide this dispute, given the Applicant’s request for records appeared to relate to his duties under section 37 of the Act.
The CAT held that it did not have jurisdiction to address directors’ entitlement to records and dismissed the application, without costs.
The applicant made several representations throughout his submissions that the application was commenced in his capacity as a director, including stating:
“I had a previous case that had a ruling by the Tribunal. However at that time I was only an owner in the Condominium Corporation.”
“This case is different, as now I am a [sic] elected director in TORONTO STANDARD CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 2510, and the other directors of the corporation are denying me access to the records that I need to do my job as a Director and apply a standard of care as per section 37 of the Condominium Act.”
Despite the applicant changing his position midway through the submissions indicating that he was bringing the application as an owner, CAT found his submissions to strongly indicate otherwise.
CAT held as follows:
“Given I have found that the Applicant requested the records in order to satisfy his obligations/duties as a director under section 37 of the Act, and not solely related to his interest as a unit owner, this application must be dismissed. The Tribunal is not permitted to hear matters beyond the scope of its jurisdiction as set out in the Act, Ontario Regulation 48/01, and Ontario Regulation 179/17. Any issues under section 37 of the Act are outside the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. If the Applicant is not receiving documents or records which he believes he requires to fulfill his duties as a director, his legal recourse is elsewhere, and not with this Tribunal.”
The decision clarifies that CAT will not intervene in director-director disputes nor make any determinations on a director’s entitlement and access to records. This is outside of CAT’s jurisdiction. CAT will only make determinations on owners’ entitlement to records.
