Rangan v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 996
2026 ONCAT 74 · April 21, 2026 · Other
TL;DR: Corporation refused a financial record without reasonable excuse — the board's claimed 'misunderstanding' of its lawyer's advice couldn't be plausibly squared with what counsel actually said. $500 penalty against the corporation, but $2,327 in costs against the owner for retributive Stage 3 escalation. The 'reasonable excuse' standard is a real bar, and tribunals also discipline unreasonable owner conduct. The Tribunal ordered a $500 penalty against a Toronto condominium corporation that refused to provide an owner with an unaudited monthly financial statement, finding the refusal was 'without reasonable excuse.' The owner — a self-represented licensed paralegal — was nonetheless ordered to pay the corporation $2,327 in partial costs because his uncompromising negotiation, escalating monetary demands, and retributive Stage 3 escalation (seeking the maximum $5,000 penalty + personal liability against directors) were unreasonable. The case is a strong precedent on the 'reasonable excuse' standard and the cost consequences of unreasonable owner conduct.
Why this matters for Alberta owners
TL;DR: Ontario records case, but the 'reasonable excuse' standard is portable to Alberta fine-notice analysis. Three lessons for Alberta owners: (1) boards can't hide behind 'misunderstandings' they invented to override their own lawyer's advice; (2) maximum-penalty demands signal bad faith and rarely succeed; (3) escalating retributively during proceedings can flip a winning case into a partial loss via costs.
This is an Ontario records-access case, not an Alberta fine-notice case, but the legal standard it applies — 'without reasonable excuse' — is directly analogous to the substantial-compliance + prejudice framework Alberta's CDRT will apply under its Policies and Procedures s. 7(b). Three takeaways for Alberta condo owners.
First, 'reasonable excuse' is a real bar, not a rubber stamp. The corporation here tried to claim its board 'misunderstood' what its lawyer told it about unaudited financial statements being non-core records. The Tribunal rejected that — the board's stated misunderstanding could not be plausibly squared with what its counsel actually advised. For Alberta owners, the parallel is clear: when a board makes a procedural mistake on a fine notice and later claims it didn't realize the requirement existed, that claim doesn't automatically excuse the defect.
Second, maximum penalties are rare and reserved for the worst cases. The owner here sought the $5,000 statutory maximum penalty and got $500. The Tribunal explained that maximum penalties are reserved for "the most egregious cases of non-compliance, particularly where there has been ongoing, insistent refusal" — and went on in the same sentence to say the maximum is also for cases involving significant numbers of records. For Alberta owners contemplating a CDRT application, the lesson is to make calibrated, reasonable demands. Asking for the moon does not increase your chances of getting it — it just signals bad faith.
Third, owner conduct matters for costs. The owner here won on the substance — the corporation refused without reasonable excuse — but was ordered to pay $2,327 in costs to the corporation because his escalating monetary demands, hard-bargaining tactics during mediation, and 'retributive' Stage 3 escalation were unreasonable. Tribunals balance accountability for corporation conduct with discipline on owner conduct. An owner who pushes for unreasonable remedies and refuses good-faith settlement offers can flip a winning case into a partial loss.
The implication for any Alberta owner considering a CDRT application: be precise about what you're asking for, accept reasonable settlement offers when they come, and don't escalate your demands as a negotiating tactic.
What the tribunal said
Selected excerpts from the Ontario CAT's reasoning. Full decision on CanLII.
[24] 'The evidence of both parties in this case clearly shows that the Respondent had no reasonable excuse to refuse to provide the Applicant with its October 2025 unaudited monthly financial statement.' [28] 'To be clear, the Respondent's lack of reasonable excuse is not simply due to the fact that the board's conclusions were wrong. It is possible for a party to arrive at an inaccurate conclusion and still have a reasonable excuse for doing so. The issue in this case is that it is simply not possible to reasonably — or even plausibly — square what the Respondent states its board "thought" with what it reports its counsel said.' [31] 'Though in some cases a delay might constitute a refusal to provide a record without reasonable excuse, in this case the delay arose as a result of the refusal without reasonable excuse, and is therefore not the causal factor on which my finding is based.' [42] 'In prior Tribunal cases, it has been noted that two principal purposes of a penalty under clause 1.44(1)6 of the Act are to impress upon the condominium the seriousness of its obligation to provide owners with access to records, and to deter further non-compliance.' [43] 'The amount of such penalty cannot reasonably be the amount the Applicant has suggested. The maximum penalty has rarely been awarded and is reserved for the most egregious cases of non-compliance, particularly where there has been ongoing, insistent refusal, or where the type and/or number of records involved have been significant.' [66] 'I find that the Applicant's decision to escalate his demands significantly by seeking the maximum penalty possible under clause 1.44(1)6 of the Act (despite the facts not remotely justifying that amount) and seeking an order for personal liability of the Respondent's directors, was clearly not reasonable. Such excessive, unjustified demands appear retributive in character and serve only to exacerbate conflicts and complicate proceedings, putting strain on the process and adding time and costs that otherwise ought not to be incurred.'
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 21, 2026 · Citation: 2026 ONCAT 74 · 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.