FineCheck
Sample

See what your $15 buys

This is a realistic example of the procedural-compliance report FineCheck sends after you submit a fine. The case is fictional — but the structure, the CDRT compliance verdict, the per-area checks, and the step-by-step blocks are exactly what the AI delivers on a real submission.

This is a sample, not a real report. The fine letter, bylaw references, and case details below are invented for illustration.

The fictional case

Corporation
Frontier Condos (Plan No. 9876543)
Unit
405
Cited bylaw
Bylaw 28.3 — Pets on common property
Fine amount
$550 (second offence)

FineCheck procedural compliance report

For owner@example.com · Generated October 12, 2026 at 14:32 · Ref a3f9e21d

The Proposed Sanction Notice for Unit 405 has three substantive procedural deficiencies. The fine amount of $550 falls within the statutory cap for a second offence (CPR s.73.8 allows up to $1,000), and the bylaw citation matches the underlying contravention. However, the notice is missing the hearing-request statement required under CPR s.73.7(i), the response deadline is shorter than the deemed-receipt math allows, and there is no documented prior written warning as required by Bylaw 28.6. Taken together, these break substantial compliance and prejudice the owner's ability to respond on time and defend the second-offence characterization.

CDRT compliance verdict

Per CDRT Policies and Procedures s.7(b), the tribunal applies a two-part test: substantial compliance with the rules, and whether any non-compliance prejudiced the owner.

Substantial compliance?
No
Owner prejudiced?
Yes
Likely CDRT outcome

Notice likely voided if challenged at adjudication; most likely outcome is that the corporation withdraws or amends in response to a written response citing these defects.

The missing hearing-request statement and the prior-warning gap both go to the core of the notice's function — informing the owner of their rights and demonstrating that the second-offence characterization is properly founded. The truncated response window compounds the prejudice by limiting the owner's opportunity to respond.

The six checks

Each area rated for severity. The CDRT verdict above is the consolidated read.

PASSED

Bylaw match — does the cited section cover the alleged offence?

The cited bylaw (Bylaw 28.3 of Frontier Condos) directly governs pets on common property. The alleged conduct (dog off-leash on common walkways) clearly falls within the bylaw's scope.

PASSED

Fine cap — is the fine within Alberta's statutory limits (CPR s.73.8)?

The fine amount ($550) is below the $1,000 cap for subsequent offences under CPR s.73.8. (The $500 first-offence cap does not apply — the letter explicitly identifies this as a second offence. See process-compliance below for whether the second-offence characterization holds.)

MAJOR ISSUE

Required fields — does the notice include all ten items required by CPR s.73.7?

The following required field appears to be missing:

  • (i) Statement that a hearing may be requested (CPR s.73.7(i)) — The notice states the owner's “further remedies are at law” but does not inform the owner of the right to request a hearing before the board. This field is explicitly required and goes to the core of the owner's defensive rights — its absence is real prejudice, not technical.
MAJOR ISSUE

Deemed receipt — is the response deadline computed correctly?

Service method: Email
Letter date: April 22, 2026
Deemed receipt (email, +24hr): April 23, 2026
Response deadline in letter: April 28, 2026
Days from deemed receipt: 5 calendar days

5 calendar days from deemed receipt is materially short of the reasonable response window the CPR contemplates for owners served by email. Combined with the prior-warning shortfall (below), the truncated window prejudices the owner's ability to gather evidence and respond.

MAJOR ISSUE

Process compliance — did the board follow the required procedural steps?

  • No documented prior warning.Bylaw 28.6 of Frontier Condos requires a written warning notice of the bylaw violation before any sanction is imposed. The letter references a “first Warning Notice issued on January 14, 2026” but the owner has not been able to locate any such warning, and the corporation has not produced it on request. If no warning exists, the second-offence categorization fails and the fine cap drops to $500.
  • Signed by manager, not the board.The notice is signed by “David Park, Property Manager, on behalf of the Board.” The CPR permits agency for service but the Board must have resolved to impose the sanction; the letter does not reference any board resolution date.
Recommended next step
Respond to the board in writing

The procedural defects are well-founded and well-documented and map directly to the CDRT's s.7(b) framework. Most corporations, when presented with a written response that frames issues in substantial-compliance + prejudice terms, amend or withdraw the notice rather than defending it at the tribunal. If the board declines to amend, a CDRT application has a strong procedural foundation. CDRT filing fee: $150 to start.

Draft response (adapt before sending)

Dear Board of Directors, I am writing regarding the Proposed Sanction Notice dated April 22, 2026 concerning Unit 405. The notice does not substantially comply with CPR s.73.7 in three ways, each of which has prejudiced my ability to respond properly. Per s.7(b) of the CDRT Policies and Procedures, the tribunal applies a substantial-compliance + prejudice test, and on this notice the test points to amendment or withdrawal: 1. MISSING REQUIRED FIELD (CPR s.73.7(i)): The notice does not include a statement informing me of the right to request a hearing. This is a required field, and its absence prejudices my defensive rights. 2. INSUFFICIENT RESPONSE WINDOW: The letter is dated April 22 and was served by email. Under deemed-receipt rules, the letter was received April 23, 2026. The response deadline of April 28 provides only 5 calendar days from deemed receipt — materially short of what is reasonable for the owner to respond. 3. NO DOCUMENTED PRIOR WARNING (Bylaw 28.6): This notice references a "first Warning Notice issued January 14, 2026" but I have no record of receiving such a warning. Bylaw 28.6 requires a written prior warning before any sanction is imposed. Please produce the original warning, or confirm that this is in fact a first offence (with the corresponding $500 cap under CPR s.73.8). I respectfully request that this notice be withdrawn pending production of the prior warning, and re-issued (if at all) with a compliant response window and the required hearing-request statement. Sincerely, [Your name], Unit 405

How to reply to the corporation

Concrete steps to use the draft response above.

  1. 1. Send the response by recorded/registered mail or email with read receipt.
    Get proof of delivery. Even a short delay can leave you with no record of having responded on time.
  2. 2. Send it before the response deadline in the letter (April 28, 2026).
    Even though that deadline is too short under the deemed-receipt rules, you don't waive that argument by meeting it — and you avoid a separate dispute about timeliness.
  3. 3. Keep a complete file: the original notice, this report, your sent response, and the delivery confirmation.
    If the corporation pushes back, the same file becomes your CDRT evidence package later.
  4. 4. Give the corporation 10 business days to acknowledge.
    Most boards respond within a week if they're going to amend. Silence past 10 business days usually means they intend to maintain the notice.
  5. 5. If you get no satisfactory acknowledgment, move to CDRT filing.
    Use the steps in the next section.

How to file at the CDRT

The CDRT process is multi-stage. Most cases settle before adjudication.

  1. 1. Apply at condodisputes.alberta.ca and pay the $150 application fee.
    Fee waivers are available — see the Fee Waiver form if household income is below the published thresholds.
  2. 2. Upload your evidence package via the Application Service portal.
    Include the notice, your bylaw, your response, the corporation's reply (if any), and this report. Copies of CPA, CPR, and the CDRT Policies and Procedures should be attached too — per s.25(j), the tribunal won't look them up for you.
  3. 3. Participate in Guided Negotiation (Stage 1, included in the $150 fee).
    Chat-based, moderated by CDRT staff. Many fine disputes settle here. Frame the issue in substantial-compliance + prejudice terms.
  4. 4. If unresolved, agree to Mediation (Stage 2, first four hours included).
    Video conference with a tribunal Mediator. Confidential. The Mediator doesn't decide — they facilitate.
  5. 5. If still unresolved, proceed to Adjudication (Stage 3, $350 additional).
    Virtual hearing. Binding decision in 90 days. Appeal/JR at Court of King's Bench within 30 days of the decision.

• This is not legal advice.

• FineCheck is not a law firm.

• Verify all citations against the official Condominium Property Act, Regulation, and the CDRT's Policies and Procedures before relying on them.

• The substantial-compliance and prejudice analysis is FineCheck's best read of the CDRT framework; the actual tribunal will apply its own judgment to the facts before it.

FineCheck is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to the Alberta Condominium Dispute Resolution Tribunal or the Government of Alberta.

Your turn

Get a report like this for your fine

Upload your fine letter, your bylaw, and any supporting documents. Get a cited report by email in about 5 minutes. $15.

Check my fine — $15

About this sample:The fictional fine letter and bylaw used to generate this report were constructed to illustrate the kind of issues FineCheck routinely flags. Real reports vary in length depending on the complexity of the case. Simple, clean notices generate shorter reports with mostly “passed” checks and a Yes/No (compliant/no prejudice) CDRT verdict; complex notices with multiple defects generate longer ones like this example.

Check my fine — $15