Vasina v. York Condominium Corporation No. 486
2026 ONCAT 3 · January 12, 2026 · Other
TL;DR: Self-represented owner records dispute. Tribunal made four findings that bear directly on the substantial-compliance + prejudice framework: (1) the owner cited four hallucinated cases that don't exist — almost certainly AI-generated — and the Tribunal disregarded all of them with an explicit warning that AI-output cases are unacceptable; (2) records (and by analogy notices) are held to a 'standard not perfection' — minor errors don't void them; (3) late delivery alone is not refusal without other facts showing intent; (4) corporations get the benefit of the doubt on 'reasonable excuse' when they make a genuine mistake AND rectify it during the dispute process. Application dismissed because most claims were technical or trivial; one drawings request found to be effectively refused but no penalty awarded because conduct wasn't willful or egregious.
Why this matters for Alberta owners
TL;DR: Most important 'how this product works' case in the corpus. The Ontario tribunal explicitly threw out four hallucinated citations from a self-represented owner who used an AI tool that invented case names — and warned all parties that AI-output cases are unacceptable. FineCheck never does this because every citation in every report is pegged to verified statute text and real precedents. The case also makes three substantive points that flow directly into how FineCheck reports work: minor errors don't void notices, late delivery alone isn't refusal, and tribunals reserve penalties for genuinely willful conduct.
The AI-hallucination point is the headline. A self-represented owner submitted legal arguments based on four ONCAT cases that don't exist — almost certainly produced by an AI tool that confidently fabricated case names, citations, and reasoning. The Member identified each phantom case by name and disregarded all arguments based on them. The Member also added a warning, in writing, in a published decision: parties cannot rely on AI-fabricated authorities, and self-representation is not an excuse. Real tribunals are now watching for this exact failure mode.
This is why FineCheck's citation framework is built the way it is. Every statutory reference in a FineCheck report (Condominium Property Act, Condominium Property Regulation, PIPA, etc.) is pegged to verified text in our codebase before being generated — the AI cannot freely invent a section number, a regulation citation, or a tribunal case name. When the AI is uncertain, the report says so explicitly rather than substituting a plausible-looking citation. This isn't a stylistic choice; it's a deliberate design decision because the alternative — what happened in Vasina — gets your arguments disregarded by the very forum you're trying to convince.
Standard not perfection — and what that means for fine notices. The Member found that "the standard to which the corporation's records are held is not perfection. Minor errors, or inconsistencies ... are not enough to render a record inadequate". The same principle will apply to Alberta fine notices under the CDRT's substantial-compliance + prejudice framework. A typo in a bylaw section number, an off-by-one date error, a corporation name slightly misspelled — these are the kinds of defects that the tribunal will likely not treat as voiding the notice. What the tribunal will treat as voiding the notice is defects that genuinely impaired your ability to understand what was being alleged or to respond meaningfully. FineCheck reports flag both kinds of defects but distinguish them: the report tells you which defects are likely substantively fatal and which are technically wrong but unlikely to void the fine on their own.
Late delivery alone is not refusal — but there's a limit. The corporation here sent the wrong financial statement, then sent the correct one during Stage 2 mediation when the mistake was pointed out — found to be reasonable excuse, not refusal. The drawings, by contrast, were clearly requested, available, and never provided until the case was filed — found to be effective refusal without reasonable excuse. The lesson is portable: if your corporation made a mistake on the fine notice but engaged with you, explained the issue, and tried to fix it during the dispute, the tribunal will likely view that as substantial compliance. If they ignored your written response and just escalated to enforcement, that pattern is what shifts the tribunal toward voiding the fine.
Penalty discretion is real. Even where the Member found an effective refusal, no penalty was awarded because the conduct wasn't willful or egregious — most of the requests were handled correctly and the one failure was rectified during the process. For Alberta owners considering a CDRT application: winning the procedural argument doesn't automatically mean winning costs or damages. The tribunal reserves financial penalties for corporations that act with willful disregard, not for one-off mistakes that were ultimately fixed.
The bottom line: this case is what an AI-assisted tribunal application looks like when it's done badly — hallucinated citations, kitchen-sink complaints about minor record errors, governance grievances dressed up as records disputes. FineCheck's design is the explicit alternative — verified statutory citations, calibrated assessment of which defects actually matter, and clear flagging of which arguments will hold up vs which won't.
What the tribunal said
Selected excerpts from the Ontario CAT's reasoning. Full decision on CanLII.
[6] (the AI-hallucination warning) 'Specifically, Ms. Vasina cites and appears to rely on arguments from cases that do not exist and may have been hallucinated by an artificial intelligence ("AI") platform (e.g., Ms. Vasina cited the following cases: Mersich v PCC 89 ONCAT 75; Labelle v Essex CC 28, 2021 ONCAT 35; Wu v TSCC 1754, 202 ONCAT 63, Rui v TSCC 2151, 202 ONCAT 27; none of which, in fact, exists). She also referred to purported requirements for forms that are not set out in the Act or any other legislation. While I appreciate that AI platforms are available and often serve as a resource for parties, particularly those who are self-represented, the Tribunal cannot accept or rely on arguments that flow from imaginary cases and statutory requirements. All parties, including those who are self-represented are responsible for ensuring that the material they submit to the Tribunal is true, accurate, and relevant to the issues at hand.' [16] (the standard-not-perfection doctrine) 'Even if Ms. Vasina had provided evidence of errors of the nature suggested, the standard to which the corporation's records are held is not perfection. Minor errors, or inconsistencies, which appear to be the types of "deficiencies" pointed to here, are not enough to render a record inadequate, and certainly not to the point of deeming the record to have been refused.' [23] (reasonable excuse where corp mistakes and rectifies) 'I accept that technically the audited financial statements from 2024 were provided outside the timeframe set out by s. 13.4 (1) of O. Reg. 48/01. However, I do not find that the evidence supports that the record was refused without a reasonable excuse. There is no indication that YCC 486 sought to refuse Ms. Vasina this record – it in fact had been circulated to all owners quite recently. The corporation provided the wrong record, but once the corporation was alerted to its mistake — which appears not to have been done until after the Tribunal process was commenced — the correct record was provided.' [27] (late delivery alone isn't refusal) 'Although in some cases an excessive delay in the provision of a requested record has contributed to evidence of a refusal to provide the record, late delivery in and of itself does not constitute a refusal. Other facts must support the idea that the lateness is evidence that the corporation originally intended not to provide the record.' [32] (where reasonable excuse fails — clear request, available record, no explanation) 'Ms. Vasina's March 18, 2025 request for records was specific and clear. ... It was clear that Ms. Vasina was not requesting a (another) copy of the Risk Assessment Report. There ought to have been no confusion as to what Ms. Vasina was requesting, and the drawings requested by Ms. Vasina are records that the corporation is required to keep ... I find that the delay in providing these records to Ms. Vasina does constitute an effective refusal — albeit a temporary one — without a reasonable excuse in this case.' [35] (penalty discretion — even refusal doesn't automatically trigger penalty) 'The award of a penalty is discretionary. ... I am not convinced by the facts and circumstances established that a penalty is necessary to ensure that the corporation understands and meets its legal obligation to provide records. The evidence before me does not indicate that YCC 486 has acted similarly to the parties in the cases cited to me — there is no evidence that YCC 486 disregards its legal obligations or has been willfully obstinate in its refusal of records. ... Weighting all the facts above, I am exercising my discretion and declining to award a penalty in this case.'
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: January 12, 2026 · Citation: 2026 ONCAT 3 · 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.