The Condominium Authority Tribunal has issued a ruling against York Condominium Corporation No. 43, located at 5 Vicora Linkway, North York, Ontario M3C 1A4, ordering the corporation to release a series of financial and administrative records to a unit owner and requiring several board members to undergo mandatory retraining1. The decision, released on December 29, 2025, marks the latest chapter in a long running series of legal disputes between the corporation and unit owner Peter Nurmi. Member Roger Bilodeau, presiding over the written online hearing, found that while the corporation did not display a total failure to maintain records, it had refused to provide specific documents without a reasonable excuse and had fallen short of the diligence required under the Condominium Act.
The conflict began in earnest on September 8, 2024, when Mr. Nurmi submitted a comprehensive request for records to the corporation. This request included both core records, such as board meeting minutes and periodic information certificates, and non-core records, including unaudited financial statements, lobby renovation contracts, and audio recordings of meetings. Under the governing regulations in Ontario, condominium corporations are required to respond to such requests within thirty days using a standardized form. While York Condominium Corporation No. 43 did provide a response on October 8, 2024, Mr. Nurmi quickly identified a variety of deficiencies that led to the eventual tribunal application. These deficiencies ranged from missing pages in board minutes to the removal of entire sections of financial reports rather than the use of proper redactions.
A central point of contention in the case involved the fees the corporation attempted to charge for access to non-core records. In its initial response, the corporation indicated that it would charge a flat fee of $30 for each non-core item requested. Mr. Nurmi argued that this was an arbitrary and excessive charge that did not align with the corporation’s own previously published “Comprehensive Process” for record requests. During the proceedings, the corporation eventually conceded that the $30 flat fee was a misstatement and that its actual practice was to charge $30 per hour for the labour required to produce records. The Tribunal noted that the failure to provide a proper estimate of hours, as required by the regulations, contributed to the confusion and delay in the process.
The Tribunal’s analysis delved deep into the quality of the records maintained by York Condominium Corporation No. 43. Mr. Nurmi highlighted significant errors in the corporation’s Periodic Information Certificates, which are documents meant to provide owners with a snapshot of the corporation’s financial and legal health. Specifically, he pointed out that the certificates failed to accurately list the number of leased units and omitted information about active legal actions, including his own ongoing cases against the corporation. While Member Bilodeau acknowledged that these records were deficient and pointed to incomplete record-keeping, he also noted that the law allows for a certain degree of human error or imperfection. He concluded that while the records were sloppy, they did not reach the level of being legally “inadequate” to the point of preventing the corporation from fulfilling its duties.
However, the Tribunal was less forgiving regarding the corporation’s handling of financial statements and board minutes. Mr. Nurmi provided evidence that the corporation had removed entire Arrears Reports from its financial statements for May, June, and July of 2024. The corporation claimed it did this to protect the privacy of unit owners, but the Tribunal found this excuse lacking. Member Bilodeau noted that the corporation had been involved in a previous case, Traicheff v. York Condominium Corporation No. 43, where it was explicitly told that such reports should be provided with specific redactions for unit numbers rather than being withheld entirely. The fact that the corporation repeated this mistake suggested a careless disregard for its legal obligations.
The ruling also addressed the missing board meeting minutes from July 18, 2024. The corporation argued that the delay in finalizing these minutes was due to an influx of end-of-year tasks and limited board availability due to vacations and family obligations. The minutes were not approved until December 2024 and were not signed until January 2025. The Tribunal found that because these minutes had been approved and signed well before the conclusion of the hearing, there was no reasonable excuse for the corporation to continue withholding them from Mr. Nurmi. Consequently, the corporation was ordered to produce the final, approved version of those minutes along with several other outstanding documents.
In a move that highlights the recurring nature of these issues at York Condominium Corporation No. 43, the Tribunal ordered a specific remedy regarding board education. Member Bilodeau pointed out that this was the seventh case involving these parties since 2022 and that previous decisions had already criticized the corporation for a “consistent careless disregard for details and duties.” As a result, the Tribunal ordered all current board members who were not in office during the Traicheff decision to complete or retake the Condominium Authority of Ontario’s foundational training module on “Corporate Records.” The corporation is also required to post a notification on the premises confirming that this training has been completed.
Despite the findings of refusal without reasonable excuse, the Tribunal declined to impose a financial penalty on the corporation. Under the Condominium Act, the Tribunal has the discretion to award a penalty of up to $5,000 to an owner if a corporation refuses access to records. In this instance, Member Bilodeau determined that a penalty was not warranted because the corporation had shown some effort to rectify errors through follow up correspondence and did not appear to have a malicious intent to deny access entirely. The Tribunal emphasized that the purpose of a penalty is to impress upon corporations the seriousness of their obligations, but in this case, the order for records and mandatory training was deemed sufficient to address the corporation’s shortcomings.
The corporation defended its actions throughout the hearing by pointing to the “excessive burden” placed on its management team by a small group of owners who frequently request records and initiate tribunal cases. Management argued that their daily responsibilities and building emergencies left them with limited time to manage repeated, detailed requests. While the Tribunal expressed some sympathy for the workload of the management team, it reiterated that the ultimate responsibility for complying with the law lies with the board of directors. The decision made it clear that a high volume of requests does not exempt a corporation from its statutory duty to provide accurate and complete records in a timely manner.
Ultimately, the Tribunal ordered York Condominium Corporation No. 43 to pay Mr. Nurmi $75 in costs to reimburse a portion of his tribunal fees. The corporation was given thirty days to provide the final minutes of the July 18 meeting, the complete unaudited financial statements for the summer of 2024 including arrears reports, and various other requested items such as audio recordings of the 2024 Annual General Meeting and invoices for minute taking services. The corporation was also ordered to post the notification regarding the board’s training in a visible and public place on the property within sixty days.
This decision serves as a reminder to condominium boards across Ontario about the importance of rigorous record-keeping and the potential consequences of ignoring previous legal guidance. The Tribunal’s insistence on board retraining suggests that when a corporation shows a pattern of administrative failure, the oversight body will look toward education and systemic change rather than just simple document production. For the residents of York Condominium Corporation No. 43, the ruling provides a path toward greater transparency, though the long history of litigation suggests that the relationship between the board and its owners remains a work in progress.
Read about more real estate cases here.
