Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
Tribunal orders free release of UNREASONABLY PRICED records : Bolanos v CCC #141 2021/06/19 17:10  
Not legal advice.

3 and a half years after ONCAT ( Ontario's Condominium Authority Tribunal ) Hearing outcomes began going online, the same Ottawa Pmgr & PMC as involved in Callow litigation ( which actually reached Canada's Supreme Court see ), here pleads unfamiliarity with pricing hired "retrieve & copy" charges. It's not the same condo corporations involved.

ONCAT's Vice Chair rules unreasonable management’s price-estimates of time & costs to “retrieve & copy” non-core records at a different condo community.

( In defence of the Ottawa management, less than a half-dozen Ottawa records disputes appear to have actually reached the final stages of Hearing outcomes over the first + 3 and a half-years of ONCAT operations. Arguably many may have resolved in earlier stages.

And management at least offered to supply their own management contract gratuitously, but their retrieval time estimates are gob-smacking ! Were the records in dusty boxes at Iron Mountain ? )

ONCAT also cuts in half management's estimated $ 65 / hr projected costs to hire-out the task.

Bottom line : ONCAT orders certain non-core records released gratuitously & cuts other estimated charges.

eg as priced to the records applicant :

$ 132 for TWO HOURS - 20 page landscape/snow contract

$ 196 for FOUR HOURS - 20 page roofing contract

$ 197 for THREE HOURS - 15 page eavestrough contract

Xcrpted :

" . . . . [28] The Applicant asserted during the hearing that they believe the Respondent had requested arbitrarily high fees to discourage the Applicant from obtaining the requested records.

Whether that was the Respondent’s motivation or not, considering the amounts requested by the Respondent against the amounts I have determined are appropriate, I conclude that may have been the effect, and that the Respondent has requested unreasonably high fees from the Applicant.

[29] It was only by filing this application that the Applicant was able to exercise their right to obtain the records without having to pay the unreasonably high fees charged by the Respondent.

If the Applicant had not done so, those fees would have been an unreasonable barrier to obtaining the records. . . . " - unquote

Bolanos v CCC #141 issued June 16/21
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster