Chai v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2431
2025 ONCAT 68 · April 25, 2025 · Partially upheld
ONCAT — in the seventh proceeding between these parties — found a refusal-without-reasonable-excuse but declined to impose the requested $5,000 penalty because (a) escalating monetary penalties had not altered board behaviour over time and (b) the applicant himself bore some responsibility for the entrenched dynamic. Instead, the tribunal exercised its s.1.44(1)7 'whatever other relief' power to order the corporation to mail the decision to every unit owner along with a board-signed letter explaining the order. Important for showing that penalty deterrence has limits and the Tribunal will craft non-monetary relief targeted at structural board accountability.
Why this matters for Alberta owners
TL;DR: After six prior rounds of litigation between Mr. Chai and his condominium — with escalating penalties from $200 in 2019 to $750 in 2022, cumulatively $950 — Member Aylwin in this seventh round refused to award the requested $5,000 maximum penalty and pivoted to a structural remedy instead: the corporation must mail a copy of the decision to every unit owner along with a board-signed letter explaining the order. The case is the cleanest demonstration in the ONCAT corpus that monetary penalties have limits. When penalties don't deter — because they're paid by all owners through common expenses, not by the board members themselves — the tribunal will reach for non-monetary structural relief under s.1.44(1)7 of the Ontario Act. For Alberta CDRT applicants, the case is a reminder that what you ask for matters: a maximum penalty isn't always the strongest remedy.
The seven-case saga. The Chai litigation is one of the longest-running disputes in ONCAT's published record. Mr. Chai filed records-disclosure applications against TSCC 2431 in 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and twice in 2025. Penalties were awarded in two of the prior six: $200 in Chai v. TSCC 2431, 2019 ONCAT 45, and $750 in Chai v. TSCC 2431, 2022 ONCAT 142. Across this history the tribunal repeatedly ordered the board to complete records-related director training. The board kept the same dysfunctional pattern: management would mishandle requests, the board would deflect responsibility to management, the applicant would file again, and the tribunal would issue another order. By the seventh case, Member Aylwin's reasoning openly questioned whether monetary penalties were doing any work at all.
What the tribunal held. Three layered findings, each one tighter than the last. At paragraph 14, Member Aylwin reaffirmed the board-cannot-abdicate principle: "The ultimate responsibility to provide records in accordance with the Act lies with the board of directors who act on behalf of the corporation. A board cannot abdicate its responsibility to meet timelines and other requirements of the Act to individual condominium managers and/or condominium management companies." At paragraph 38, on penalty discretion: "In prior Tribunal cases, it has been noted that one of the purposes of the penalty is to impress upon condominium corporations the seriousness of their obligations to ... comply with the provisions of the Act and to provide unit owners with a remedy when those obligations are not met ... There is no reason to believe awarding a higher penalty, the cost of which would be borne by all of the owners in the condominium and not solely its board, is likely to alter the behaviour of the Respondent's board members ..." Then the pivot — at paragraph 44, exercising the catch-all power of s.1.44(1)7: "I am ordering the Respondent, within 30 days of the date of this decision, to deliver a copy of this decision to all owners of the corporation at the address of service that is listed for each owner in the record of owners and mortgagees kept in accordance with s. 46.1 of the Act."
Why mailing the decision is structurally different from a penalty. A monetary penalty paid by the corporation is paid by every owner in common-expense allocations. The breaching board members pay nothing personally; the cost gets distributed to neighbours who had no role in the failure. The mail-the-decision-to-every-owner order works at a different level entirely. It tells every owner in the building, by name, that this board has been found non-compliant by a tribunal. The corporation cannot bury that knowledge in a closed-door board meeting. At the next AGM, every owner has the published facts in hand. The political cost — to the directors personally — is what creates the behavioural pressure that the financial penalty could not.
A candid finding about the applicant's role too. Member Aylwin didn't let Mr. Chai off the hook either. At paragraph 39 the Member noted that the applicant "continues to attempt to use records requests and this Tribunal, inappropriately, to address his dissatisfaction" with the board's governance practices — and that filing the seventh case to penalize what he viewed as poor governance was not the purpose of the penalty system. The reasoning at paragraph 41 is sharp: imposing a $5,000 penalty here would "reward him substantially ... at the expense of other unit owners." The tribunal is balancing two concerns: the corporation's repeated non-compliance, AND the applicant's instrumentalization of the tribunal as a personal-governance-grievance vehicle. The structural remedy threads both needles — it disciplines the corporation publicly, without enriching the applicant.
Why this matters in Alberta. The CDRT has analogous remedial flexibility under section 35 of the Condominium Property Act and the CDRT's Policies and Procedures. While Alberta's tribunal structure is newer and we don't yet have published cases applying a Chai-style structural remedy, the principle is portable: where a corporation has been repeatedly non-compliant with CPR s.73.7 procedural requirements across multiple fine notices, a CDRT applicant whose primary goal is corrective behaviour change (not personal recovery) should consider asking for non-monetary structural relief — public posting of the order, mandatory director education, or mail-out notification to all owners. These remedies create direct accountability that pure cost or penalty orders cannot. Run FineCheck on the fine notice for the procedural defects; pair the procedural challenge with a remedy ask that creates real behavioural change.
The bottom line: monetary penalties paid by corporations are paid by every owner, including the ones with no role in the breach. When that distribution-of-cost dynamic neutralizes the deterrent effect, tribunals will reach for structural alternatives — mail-the-decision-to-every-owner is the cleanest example we have. Chai is the cautionary tale for owners filing serial applications: at some point the tribunal will look past the corporation's failures and at the applicant's pattern too. The strongest CDRT application is the one that asks for behavioural change, not for personal compensation.
What the tribunal said
Selected excerpts from the Ontario CAT's reasoning. Full decision on CanLII.
[14] ... The ultimate responsibility to provide records in accordance with the Act lies with the board of directors who act on behalf of the corporation. A board cannot abdicate its responsibility to meet timelines and other requirements of the Act to individual condominium managers and/or condominium management companies. Even if, as Mr. Clarke suggests, the board gave clear direction to the condominium manager at the time of the request, given the lengthy history of records disputes between the parties, it would have behooved the board to follow up with and ensure the condominium manager carried out their duties in respect to this request in a timely manner. [38] In prior Tribunal cases, it has been noted that one of the purposes of the penalty is to impress upon condominium corporations the seriousness of their obligations to comply with the provisions of the Act ... There is no reason to believe awarding a higher penalty, the cost of which would be borne by all of the owners in the condominium and not solely its board, is likely to alter the behaviour of the Respondent's board members ... [44] ... I am ordering the Respondent, within 30 days of the date of this decision, to deliver a copy of this decision to all owners of the corporation at the address of service that is listed for each owner in the record of owners and mortgagees kept in accordance with s. 46.1 of the Act.
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: April 25, 2025 · Citation: 2025 ONCAT 68 · Outcome: partially upheld. FineCheck's commentary is published for research and educational use; not legal advice. Verify any reliance on this decision against the original text.