Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Divisional Court reviewed whether the Condominium Authority Tribunal reasonably dismissed two applications brought by Jeff Clegg under Rule 19.1 and section 1.41(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998.
• Jurisdiction over Periodic Information Certificate disputes emerged as a central issue, since the Act assigns PIC content and timing to sections 26.3 of the Act and 11.1 of the Regulation rather than to the Tribunal's records jurisdiction under section 55.
• Standing became relevant in the second application, because Mr. Clegg sought damages over the publication of other owners' names in condominium minutes despite having no personal connection to the alleged noncompliance.
• Prior CAT decisions, including Yeung v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1136 and Mariam Verjee v. York Condominium Corporation No. 43, informed the court's reasoning on the scope of section 55.
• Reasonableness, as set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, governed the applicable standard of review for both CAT decisions.
• Costs of $5,000 were addressed as part of the outcome, reflecting the parties' prior agreement regarding an unsuccessful judicial review application.

Facts of the case

Jeff Clegg, self-represented, sought judicial review of two decisions of the Condominium Authority Tribunal ("CAT"): Clegg v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 382, 2025 ONCAT 196 (the "First Decision") and Clegg v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 382, 2025 ONCAT 201 (the "Second Decision"). In the First Decision, Mr. Clegg had filed a "Records" category dispute in October 2025 concerning a Periodic Information Certificate ("PIC") issued by his condominium corporation. He raised concerns that the PIC had not been issued on a timely basis, that the Reserve Fund Budget was not attached to it, that the Budget's format was inadequate, and that portions of the Budget were inconsistent with other representations. On October 20, 2025, the CAT issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, and on November 28, 2025, it dismissed the application, finding it lacked authority over disputes about the accuracy and content of PICs. The CAT also noted the application was similar to earlier applications Mr. Clegg had brought and issued him a warning about improper use of the Tribunal. The Second Decision arose after Mr. Clegg objected, on October 26, 2025, to the condominium's September 2025 Minutes identifying three unit owners by name — one who had requested records, one who had made a suggestion, and one who had agreed to assist with a task. None of the three were Mr. Clegg, and none objected to being named. The condominium subsequently amended the Minutes to remove the name of the owner who had requested records, but left the other two names in place. Despite this, Mr. Clegg filed a CAT application on November 6, 2025 seeking personal damages, which was his tenth application to the CAT and his fifth filed in 2025. On December 1, 2025, the CAT dismissed this application on its own motion, without submissions from either party.

Statutory and procedural provisions at issue

The CAT's authority derives from the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19, which structures dispute resolution into negotiation, mediation, and adjudication stages, and limits the Tribunal's jurisdiction to four categories: maintenance of and access to condominium records, nuisance disputes, and disputes over vehicles, parking, and storage, along with enforcement of related settlements. Rule 19.1 of the CAT Rules of Practice permits dismissal at any stage where, among other grounds, a matter is minor, has no reasonable prospect of success, falls outside the CAT's legal authority, or is brought for an improper purpose. Section 1.41(1) of the Act separately allows the CAT to dismiss an application without a hearing if it is frivolous, vexatious, not brought in good faith, or discloses no reasonable cause of action. For the First Decision, the relevant provisions were section 26.3 of the Act, which governs delivery and timing of PICs, and section 11.1 of General Regulation 48/01, which sets out the required content of a PIC — both of which the parties agreed fall outside the CAT's jurisdiction. Mr. Clegg instead argued that section 55 of the Act, which addresses adequate record-keeping, gave the CAT jurisdiction because accuracy is a component of adequacy. For the Second Decision, section 55(4) of the Act, concerning the identification of owners in condominium records, was the provision Mr. Clegg relied on in alleging improper disclosure.

The court's reasoning and analysis

Applying the reasonableness standard from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, the court found the CAT's dismissal of the First Decision reasonable. It held that Mr. Clegg conflated the statutory definition of adequacy under section 55 with his own subjective view of the condominium's decision-making, and that section 55 grants the CAT jurisdiction over who can access records and under what circumstances, not over the substantive content of a Reserve Fund Budget or PIC. The court relied on Mariam Verjee v. York Condominium Corporation No. 43, 2024 ONCAT 93, which held that adequacy is judged by an objective standard tied to whether a corporation can fulfill its duties, not by a requester's subjective views, and that the Tribunal's records jurisdiction is not meant to replace democratic governance of a corporation. The court also found Mr. Clegg had misread Yeung v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1136, 2020 ONCAT 33, which concerned director emails and did not support an expanded reading of "adequacy." Turning to the Second Decision, the court agreed that no live dispute remained once the condominium amended the Minutes, and that Mr. Clegg lacked standing to claim damages over the two remaining names because there was no connection between him and the alleged noncompliance. The court noted the CAT Chair's observation that Mr. Clegg was "rolling over grounds and issues raised in prior CAT cases and incorporating them in new applications," supporting the conclusion that dismissal under section 1.41(1) was a reasonable exercise of the Tribunal's screening authority. The court also declined to address Mr. Clegg's bias allegation against the CAT Chair, finding it unraised in oral submissions and, in any event, unsupported given the high threshold described in Spivak v. Hirsch, 2021 ONSC 5464.

Ruling and outcome

The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. Clegg's application for judicial review in its entirety, finding no basis to interfere with either CAT decision, so that the Condominium Authority Tribunal was the successful party before the court. Consistent with the parties' prior agreement, the court ordered Mr. Clegg to pay $5,000 in costs within 30 days; the decision states these costs are payable to "the corporation," though the named respondent throughout the proceeding was the CAT rather than Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 382 — this discrepancy appears as written in the judgment and is noted here rather than resolved, since the document does not clarify it further.