Roumy v. York Condominium Corporation No. 50
2022 ONCAT 109 · October 12, 2022 · Other
ONCAT ordered York Condominium Corporation No. 50 to reimburse a unit owner $960.50 for 'legal services' fees the corporation had charged for processing a records request, plus $200 in tribunal filing fees and $9.95 for the cost of the money order the owner had been forced to use. The corporation had levied the charge AFTER providing the records, then threatened lien-style collection enforcement if the owner didn't pay. Member Roth held the corporation had no statutory authority to charge $960.50 for processing what was a routine board-minutes request, and that the lien-coercion payment was recoverable. Direct authority for owners whose corporation imposes inflated 'legal fee' chargebacks on records requests.
Why this matters for Alberta owners
TL;DR: When the condo charges you a large 'legal fee' to process a routine records request and then threatens collection enforcement if you don't pay, that's recoverable. Member Roth in Roumy v. YCC 50 ordered the corporation to reimburse $960.50 in fees the owner had paid under duress, plus $200 in tribunal filing fees and $9.95 for the forced money-order cost. The statutory records-fee structure under the Condominium Act and O. Reg. 48/01 is closed — corporations can charge for reproduction (per-page) and delivery, but cannot tack on discretionary 'legal review' or 'processing' fees on routine requests. The Alberta translation: section 20.5 of Alberta's Condominium Property Act and the Condominium Property Regulation impose a similar closed-fee structure on records requests. A chargeback above the prescribed amounts, especially one extracted under lien-threat, is recoverable through the CDRT or the courts.
The facts. Monique Roumy owned a unit at York Condominium Corporation No. 50. On December 12, 2021, she submitted the prescribed Ontario records-request form requesting board-meeting minutes for December 2020 through December 2021. After processing — and after providing the redacted records — the corporation's manager sent her a March 1, 2022 letter with an invoice for $960.50, characterized as 'legal services related to her records request.' The letter also reminded her of the corporation's debt-collection procedure and threatened collection enforcement if the fee wasn't paid by March 15. Ms. Roumy paid by money order under duress, then filed at the tribunal to recover what she'd paid.
What the tribunal held. Three layers of analysis. First, the corporation lacked statutory authority for the charge. Records-request fees are prescribed by O. Reg. 48/01, which limits the corporation to per-page reproduction costs (cents per page for hard copy; nil for electronic delivery) plus reasonable delivery costs. A discretionary 'legal review' fee — particularly one ten or fifty times the prescribed reproduction cost — has no statutory basis. The corporation cannot supplement the regulation's fee structure by adding lawyer-time chargebacks for routine requests.
Second, the lien-coercion payment was fully recoverable. Ms. Roumy paid under duress after the corporation's collection-enforcement threat. The Member treated her payment as coerced, not as an admission of liability — and ordered full reimbursement. This is the same principle running through Schnitzler (2022 ONCAT 108) on compliance-letter chargebacks: a payment made to avoid a lien threat doesn't lose its recoverable character.
Why this matters in Alberta. The Alberta records-fee structure under section 20.5 of the Condominium Property Act and section 32 of the Condominium Property Regulation similarly prescribes the maximum a corporation can charge for records: cents per page for reproduction, reasonable delivery costs, no discretionary 'processing' or 'legal review' supplement. Many Alberta corporations have started attaching lawyer-time chargebacks to records requests they consider 'difficult' or 'voluminous.' Roumy is direct authority that this is not permitted, and that any amount paid above the prescribed structure is recoverable.
The dynamic is particularly relevant for owners trying to investigate fine notices. CPR s.73.7 makes a Proposed Sanction notice valid only if it cites specific contravention facts. Verifying those facts often requires records access — security logs, incident reports, manager correspondence, board-meeting minutes. Corporations sometimes deter that verification by imposing inflated chargebacks on the records request itself. Roumy is the tool for recovering those costs after the fact, and the implicit deterrent: corporations that try this with informed owners end up writing reimbursement cheques plus tribunal costs.
On the over-redaction angle. Even if the corporation honoured the records request and didn't overcharge, the records you receive may be over-redacted. The Roumy footnote on redaction practice is worth knowing: redactions have to fit a specific statutory exemption, and each redaction needs its own explanation. Block redactions of full pages or whole sections, without per-redaction reasoning, are challengeable. In Alberta, the equivalent provision is section 20.6 of the Condominium Property Act on permitted record exemptions — same principle, same need for per-redaction justification.
The bottom line: corporations cannot tack on discretionary 'legal fee' chargebacks for processing routine records requests. Roumy is direct Ontario authority that any amount above the prescribed fee structure is recoverable — even when the owner paid under threat of lien. Run FineCheck on the underlying fine notice; if accessing records to verify the notice has required you to pay inflated chargebacks, those chargebacks are independently recoverable under the Roumy framework.
What the tribunal said
Selected excerpts from the Ontario CAT's reasoning. Full decision on CanLII.
Member Roth found that the corporation had no statutory or governing-document basis to charge the unit owner $960.50 in 'legal service' fees for processing the records request. The Condominium Act and O. Reg. 48/01 prescribe the records-fee structure (per-page reproduction costs, modest delivery costs); a corporation cannot supplement that structure with discretionary 'legal review' chargebacks for routine requests. The Member also addressed the lien-coercion payment dynamic — Ms. Roumy paid 'under duress' after a threat of collection enforcement — and treated the payment as fully recoverable, with no offset for voluntariness.
Connects to FineCheck's framework
Jurisdictional note: Ontario CATdecisions are not binding on Alberta's CDRT, but the CDRT will look to other Canadian condo tribunals for guidance under analogous statutory provisions until its own case law develops. The substantial-compliance + prejudice framework used in this decision parallels the test in CDRT Policies and Procedures s.7(b).
Decision date: October 12, 2022 · Citation: 2022 ONCAT 109 · Outcome: other. FineCheck's commentary is published for research and educational use; not legal advice. Verify any reliance on this decision against the original text.