The Condominium Act gives owners broad access to condominium records. But does that mean an owner can obtain every draft, spreadsheet, email and calculation considered by a board along the way?
In Hunaidi v. CCC 75, the Condominium Authority Tribunal confirmed that the answer is “no”.
Not every underlying document is a corporate record
The owner argued that documents used by the board to evaluate scenarios, consider alternatives and develop its funding strategy became records of the corporation because the board had relied on them.
The CAT rejected that broad proposition.
The “open book” principle does not entitle an owner to every document in a corporation’s possession. Draft documents and working papers generally do not form part of the corporation’s records. The CAT found that materials generated during the iterative review of a draft reserve fund study were work-in-progress and did not form part of the corporation’s records.
The owner also argued that additional reports and correspondence must exist. The CAT rejected that speculation and confirmed that a corporation cannot be ordered to produce records it does not possess.
Similarly, the owner requested records “sufficient to explain and reconcile” various reserve-fund figures. The CAT found that this was really a request for information:
“The corporation is not required to compile information to provide explanations or reconciliations…”
When the net is cast too widely
The CAT was particularly critical of the owner’s broad request for the detailed reserve-fund options and underlying inputs considered by the board.
The board minutes already identified the options considered and explained the reasons for their rejection. The CAT found no apparent reason for requesting the detailed inputs other than to challenge the board’s decision and characterized that part of the request as having the features of a fishing expedition.
An owner’s right to access records is therefore not an unlimited right to investigate every preliminary calculation, draft or internal working document behind a board decision.
Costs and a warning for next time
The CAT concluded that the owner was largely unsuccessful and ordered him to pay the corporation $1,500 in costs.
The CAT noted that the owner attempted to hold the corporation to an unrealistic standard of perfection, advanced a request that amounted to a fishing expedition and filed repetitive 48-page submissions that caused the corporation to incur unnecessary additional legal expense. It also found that, based on an earlier decision involving the same parties, he knew or ought to have known that draft documents do not necessarily form records of the corporation.
Most importantly, the CAT expressly warned that future similar requests may result in greater liability for costs.
The takeaway
Condominium corporations must maintain adequate records and operate transparently. But “open book” does not mean open access to every draft, worksheet or underlying document reviewed or generated during the board’s decision-making process.
Records requests should also not be used as a back door to challenge governance decisions. When an owner casts an excessively broad net, relies on speculation and pursues repetitive claims, the CAT may call the request what it is, a fishing expedition, and make the owner contribute to the resulting legal costs.
