Advanced Search

Bogue v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 288 - 2024 ONCAT 15 - 2024-01-26

Request 1 relates to all audio\video recordings of the virtual annual general meeting of the Respondent held on July 22, 2022 (“2022 AGM”).   [...]  1. Is the audio\video recording of the virtual 2022 AGM of the Respondent held on July 22, 2022 a record of the corporation?   [...]  Issue 1: Is the audio\video recording of the virtual 2022 AGM of the Respondent held on July 22, 2022 a record of the corporation?

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2448 v. Ihejirika et al. - 2023 ONCAT 178 - 2023-11-24

In addition to the correspondence I have summarized above, the Applicant uploaded 50 security incident reports and 46 audio/video recordings to the CAT-ODR system. Ms. Ihejirika uploaded 206 audio/video recordings.   [...]  She noted that Ms. Muzyka had no video recording of what she testified were Ms. Ihejirika’s threats to burn or flood the building.   [...]  [59] Notwithstanding her submission that audio/video recordings are of limited evidentiary value, Ms. Ihejirika submitted 206 recordings to support her argument that TSCC 2448 is a noisy building.

Kent v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 268 - 2022 ONCAT 128 - 2022-11-21

After the meeting, the Applicant requested the recording. The Respondent refused to provide it. This decision considers whether a video recording of an owners’ meeting is a record under the Act that must be provided to an owner when they request it.   [...]  Is a video recording of the January 17, 2022, owners’ meeting a record under the Act that must be retained and produced on request?   [...]  This decision refers to “recordings” and “records”. “Recording,” refers to the video recording of the meeting.

Arulpiragasam v. Nguyen - 2023 ONCAT 174 - 2023-11-16

Video evidence [8] In support of his allegations of unreasonable noise, Mr. Arulpiragasam submitted two short videos, each less than a minute.   [...]  In the video, a sound amplification system can be seen to be in use. The audio recording of the event includes conversation which cannot be heard clearly over the sound of music.   [...]  [11] The issue before me is the admissibility of the short videos submitted as evidence. There is no law in Canada that deals with video taking in all circumstances.

Delia v. Ranches et al. - 2022 ONCAT 127 - 2022-11-21

The level of acrimony was apparent in their submissions and evidence, and particularly in a video recording of an altercation between them on July 11, 2022, that I describe in more detail below.   [...]  Mr. Cleminson submitted a video recording taken by Ms. Ranches of one particular interaction with the Applicant that occurred on July 11, 2022.   [...]  [25] The video recording, however, provides some objective evidence but not in relation to the noises complained of by the Applicant.

York Condominium Corporation No. 385 v. Vianellis - 2023 ONCAT 72 - 2023-05-29

I note that Ms. Vianellis identified the individual with Mitsey in both videos as her niece, lending credence to her testimony that she was unaware of these incidents until the videos were submitted as evidence in this proceeding.   [...]  However, the video evidence does persuade me on a balance of probabilities that the March 18, 2020, cleaning was performed to address staining following Mitsey’s recorded accident on March 6, 2020, and that Ms. Vianellis is responsible for this cleaning cost in accordance with Article XI (1) of YCC 385’s declaration.   [...]  10. Exhibits 24 and 30 are deemed confidential and are not to be made available as part of the public record in this matter. The parties in this case must take all reasonable steps to ensure that these records remain private.

Jalbout v. Brown et al. - 2023 ONCAT 147 - 2023-10-12

[31] In support of her claim, Ms. Jalbout also submitted a video recording of one such alleged incident, under the title ‘Nuisance - Excessive noise from Jaymie’s room’.   [...]  They add that the video recording submitted by Ms. Jalbout is the only recording of such noise and that it is a low volume recording of a normal conversation, with some giggling.   [...]  b) In regard to her video recording evidence of the bedroom window incident (‘Excessive noise from Jaymie’s room’), one can only hear a low volume recording of a normal conversation, with some laughter or giggling, without any music or shouting; and

Harrison v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2714 - 2021 ONCAT 30 - 2021-04-13

[7] The video conference hearing focussed on the records identified as in dispute.   [...]  During the hearing, the Respondent undertook to provide some of the records on the list and to investigate to determine if certain records do exist.   [...]  The records that the Respondent agreed to provide were provided. C. ANALYSIS - RECORDS IN DISPUTE

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1053 v. Ahluwalia et al. - 2024 ONCAT 63 - 2024-05-08

Key fobs and security video [10] Mr. Schwartz’s statement includes information about the use of key fobs that are registered to the unit, and a review of security video.   [...]  So, records that show that a fob registered to Ms. Ahluwalia was used does not establish if the fob was used by Ms. Ahluwalia or Mr. Ahluwalia.   [...]  [15] Mr. Schwartz testified that the condominium installed a video licence recognition system a few years ago to keep track of parking in the resident parking area.

Clarkson v. Brant Vacant Land Condominium Corporation No. 110 - 2024 ONCAT 95 - 2024-06-27

If any of these records do not exist, BVLCC 110 is to provide a detailed written confirmation itemizing the record and explaining that it does not exist.   [...]  1. Is Ms. Clarkson entitled to receive copies of the requested records? 2. Did BVLCC 110 refuse to provide the requested records without a reasonable excuse?   [...]  These are records to which Ms. Clarkson is entitled. [12] The budget, and the approved financial statements, are records listed in Section 55 (1) of the Act and O. Reg. 48/01 as records the corporation is required to maintain.

Lou v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2036 - 2024 ONCAT 100 - 2024-07-05

Video Conference – June 20, 2024 REASONS FOR DECISION A. INTRODUCTION   [...]  1. Did TSCC 2036 provide the requested records in accordance with the Act? 2. Did TSCC 2036 redact the records in excess of the requirements of s. 55(4) of the Act?   [...]  [10] In advance of the video hearing, I asked Mr. Lou to provide a chart of the issues he had with each redacted invoice.

Park v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2775 - 2023 ONCAT 171 - 2023-11-10

[26] At the video conference call, there was some contention concerning these standards.   [...]  Board members reviewed the security video taken by the security camera during Mr. Koval’s visit to the gym. TSCC 2775 alleges that Mr. Koval’s description of what he did to take the sound readings for the doors does not accord with his actions as depicted in the video.   [...]  The engineers agree that noise from sources other than the gym were recorded. Mr. Park’s consultant felt these were likely due to traffic noise.

Chai v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2431 - 2021 ONCAT 116 - 2021-12-03

He also questions the adequacy of the records received. TSCC 2431 takes the position that all the requested records have been provided and that they are adequate and accurate.   [...]  The Tribunal cannot order a condominium corporation to produce records that do not exist. Mr. Chai has demonstrated that there are some problems with the records, and I deal further with the adequacy of the records below.   [...]  Issue 3: Are the records that Mr. Chai received adequate? [22] Mr. Chai raised many concerns about the adequacy of the records he received.