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 every check, citation, and finding shows 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 documentation of a prior written warning as required by Bylaw 28.6 of the Frontier Condos bylaw. The owner has reasonable grounds to respond to the board in writing citing these issues; if the board declines to amend, a CDRT application would have a strong procedural foundation.

The six checks

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.)

MAJOR ISSUE

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

The following required fields appear 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.
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 is short of the reasonable response window that CPR contemplates for owners served by email. While the regulation does not mandate a specific minimum, the combination of (a) email service, (b) the prior-warning shortfall noted below, and (c) the limited response time materially impacts the owner's opportunity to respond. A 10-day response window from deemed receipt is the practical baseline.

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 buyer 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 would drop to $500.
  • Signed by manager, not the board.The notice is signed by “David Park, Property Manager, on behalf of the Board.” CPR permits agency for service but the Board must have resolved to impose the sanction; the letter does not reference any board resolution date.
PASSED

Recommendation

Respond to the board in writing. The procedural defects identified are well-founded and well-documented. Most corporations, when presented with a written response citing specific CPR provisions, amend or withdraw the notice rather than defending it at the CDRT. If the board declines to amend after your response, a CDRT application has a strong procedural foundation. Filing fee: $150.

Draft response (adapt before sending)

Dear Board of Directors, I am writing regarding the Proposed Sanction Notice dated April 22, 2026 concerning Unit 405. I dispute this notice on the following procedural grounds: 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. CPR s.73.7(i) requires this statement explicitly. 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 (next-day for email). The response deadline of April 28 provides only 5 calendar days from deemed receipt. 3. NO DOCUMENTED PRIOR WARNING: 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). I respectfully request that this notice be withdrawn pending production of the prior warning and re-issuance with a compliant response window and the required hearing-request statement. Sincerely, [Your name], Unit 405

• This is not legal advice.

• FineCheck is not a law firm.

• Verify all citations against the official Condominium Property Act and Regulation before relying on them.

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; complex notices with multiple defects generate longer ones like this example.