Balasubramaniam v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 812
2023 ONCAT 152 · October 23, 2023 · Notice voided
ONCAT imposed the MAXIMUM $5,000 penalty under s.1.44(1)6 of the Ontario Act on a corporation that refused multiple records without reasonable excuse — and that had been previously ordered by the tribunal in a different case to provide records to the same applicant. Member Wickett's analysis identified three factors driving the maximum award: the length of the delay, the number of records not provided (meeting minutes, financial statements, bank statements), and the repeat-non-compliance pattern across two separate tribunal proceedings. The case is the cleanest ONCAT authority for the proposition that maximum penalty awards are reserved for corporations whose refusal pattern has already withstood tribunal correction once.
Why this matters for Alberta owners
TL;DR: Tribunal penalties for records refusal max out at $5,000, and Balasubramaniam shows what it takes to actually hit the ceiling: multiple records refused, sustained delay, AND a prior tribunal order for the same conduct that the corporation still ignored. Most refusal cases get $500-$1,500 penalties. Maximum awards are reserved for corporations whose refusal pattern has already withstood one round of tribunal correction without changing behaviour. The Alberta translation: when the CDRT eventually develops its own penalty jurisprudence under section 35 of the Condominium Property Act, Balasubramaniam will be the structural template — penalty calibration tied to (1) length of delay, (2) number of records, (3) repeat conduct.
The facts. The applicant had previously applied to ONCAT against Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 812 and obtained an order requiring the corporation to produce records. After that order, the applicant filed a second records request — for board-meeting minutes covering May 2022 to June 2023, the most recent financial statements, and the corporation's bank statements for January 2021 to May 2023. The corporation refused. The applicant filed again at the tribunal.
What the tribunal held. The substantive refusal finding was straightforward — none of the records the applicant requested had been provided, and the corporation's stated reasons for refusing did not meet the 'reasonable excuse' threshold under the Ontario Act. The interesting analysis is the penalty calibration.
Three compounding factors. (1) DELAY: not days or weeks but months — the records-request timeline stretched from May 2022 (the earliest requested record) through to the hearing date in fall 2023. (2) NUMBER AND TYPE: three distinct record categories, including financial records that go to corporation governance accountability. (3) REPEAT CONDUCT: the corporation had already been to tribunal once on records refusal and had still not changed its behaviour. The repeat-conduct factor is the multiplier — single refusals don't max out the penalty, but repeated refusals after prior tribunal correction do.
The penalty purpose. At paragraph 19, the Member observed that the purpose of a penalty is to impress upon condominium corporations the seriousness of their legal responsibilities to comply with the provisions of the Act. Penalties are not damages — they're deterrent-and-accountability tools. A corporation that's already been told once by the tribunal to comply and STILL refuses requires more pressure than a corporation in its first refusal proceeding.
The Chai distinction. Compare Balasubramaniam to Chai v. TSCC 2431, 2025 ONCAT 68 (see /tribunal-decisions/2025-oncat-68). Chai was the SEVENTH proceeding between the same parties, with escalating penalties from $200 (2019) to $750 (2022) cumulatively under $1,000. The tribunal in Chai refused to award the requested $5,000 because it had observed that escalating monetary penalties weren't actually changing the corporation's behaviour — and pivoted to structural relief (mail the decision to every owner) instead. Balasubramaniam shows the OPPOSITE end of the spectrum: where penalties are still expected to produce behavioural change, the tribunal will go to the maximum. Together, the two cases map the full range: $5,000 maximum where the tribunal believes one more round of penalty pressure will work; structural relief where it has clearly given up on penalty escalation.
Why this matters in Alberta. Two practical implications. First, owners filing records-refusal complaints at the CDRT should plead Balasubramaniam-style penalty quantum factors explicitly: delay (in months, not days), number of records, type of record, and any prior pattern of refusal by the same corporation. Don't just ask for 'a penalty' — ask for a quantum tied to the three factors with prior tribunal authority cited.
Second, for corporations who think a refused records request can be papered over with a partial response: Balasubramaniam shows the cost of getting it wrong twice. A corporation that gets a records-refusal finding once and doesn't change behaviour exposes itself to a maximum-penalty escalation. The cost of a robust records-request response process is dramatically less than the cost of repeat tribunal proceedings.
The bottom line: maximum penalty awards are real, but they're reserved for corporations whose refusal pattern has already withstood one round of tribunal correction. Balasubramaniam is the cleanest authority for the calibration framework. Run FineCheck on the underlying fine notice; if your verification effort has been impeded by records refusal, separately pursue the records-refusal claim and plead the penalty factors explicitly.
What the tribunal said
Selected excerpts from the Ontario CAT's reasoning. Full decision on CanLII.
[19] Under section 1.44 (3) of the Act, the Tribunal has authority to award a penalty of up to $5000. What penalty amount is appropriate depends on the specific facts in each case. It is important to outline the basis for a penalty under the Act. In previous Tribunal decisions it has been held that the purpose of a penalty is to impress upon condominium corporations the seriousness of their legal responsibilities. [22] I have found that the Respondent has refused without reasonable excuse to provide the Applicant with the meeting minutes for May 2022 to June 2023, the most recent financial statements and the corporation's bank statements for January 2021 to May 2023. This refusal occurred despite consequences for similar behaviour having been imposed against the Respondent by this Tribunal. [23] In determining the quantum of the penalty, I have considered the length of the delay, the number of records not provided, and the type of record. I have also considered the Respondent's repeated non-compliance under the Act regarding requests for records. Considering these factors, I find that a penalty in the maximum amount of $5,000 is appropriate.
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 23, 2023 · Citation: 2023 ONCAT 152 · Outcome: notice voided. FineCheck's commentary is published for research and educational use; not legal advice. Verify any reliance on this decision against the original text.