contents  previous  next
CAT decisions

Robert Remillard v. FCC No. 18
Shaheed Mohamed v. YCC No. 414
Joe Micieli v TSCC No. 1753
Janet Cangiano v. MTCC No. 962
Mara Bossio v. MTCC No. 965
Terence Arrowsmith v PCC No. 94
Rafael Barreto-Rivera v MTCC No. 704
Michael Lahrkamp v MTCC No. 932

Robert Remillard v. Frontenac Condominium Corporation No. 18
Case: 2017-00051R
Adjudicator: Mary Ann Spencer
Date: 04 May 2018

The award of costs is at the Tribunal’s discretion. Rule 31.1 of the tribunal's Rules of Practice states “The Tribunal will not order one User to pay to another User any fees charged by that User’s lawyer or paralegal, unless there are exceptional reasons to do this.”

Both the Applicant and the Respondent requested the Tribunal award costs if the decision were to be in their favour. The Applicant requested $200, the total of the fees he filed with respect to his application to the Tribunal. The Respondent requested reimbursement of $10,619.29, the legal costs it incurred.

The condo corporation submitted that the Applicant brought “this action unnecessarily against the Corporation and needlessly complicated the proceedings with his allegations of bad faith and impropriety.”

It further submitted that the owner unnecessarily complicated the proceedings throughout the three stages by raising issues that had been previously litigated or had no relevance to the application. And, it submitted that “The Corporation is entitled to its costs because it would be inequitable and unjust for the uninvolved unit owners to bear the Corporation’s cost in successfully defending this meritless application.”

The adjudicator ruled that: "The Tribunal’s online dispute resolution system was developed to help people resolve disputes conveniently, quickly and affordably. The issues before me were not complex and therefore I question the quantum of the Respondent’s costs. I also do not find that the Applicant’s conduct complicated the proceedings, although, necessarily, I have no knowledge of what transpired during the first two stages."

I find two items of interest here. One is that if you want costs, you have to ask for them. Two, if the condo corporation hires a lawyer, if the owner acts reasonably, he or she most likely will not be hit with the corporation's legal costs.


Shaheed Mohamed v. YCC No. 414

Case: 2017-00011R
Adjudicator: Michael Clifton
Date: June 7, 2018

YCC 414 is a high rise condo at 2645 Kipling Ave, Etobicoke.

The Applicant, Shaheed Mohamed, is a unit owner and identified himself as president of a “Homeowners Committee” of unit owners, but that position was not recognized by the adjudicator.
Three issues need to be determined in this case:
is the Applicant entitled to all of the records requested, including the record of owners and mortgagees?
is the Respondent’s demand for a fee for the requested records in compliance with the law?
should an award of costs and/or a penalty be ordered in favour of the Applicant?

On the first issue, the adjudicator concluded that the Applicant is entitled to all requested documents. The Applicant is entitled to receive the condo’s record of owners and mortgagees as requested, as well as all of the other Requested Core Records and requested Non-Core Records

On the second issue, the adjudicator found that although the condo corporation is entitled under the law to demand a fee, the actual fee demanded was not in compliance with the law. An analysis of what constitutes a more appropriate fee is set out in this decision.

On the third issue, the adjudicator found that costs and a penalty in favour of the Applicant were appropriate in this case.

The Respondent shall:
immediately and in any event no later than one business day after payment of $110.25 by the Applicant to the Respondent, deliver to the Applicant the financial records that the Respondent states it has already copied and prepared for pick-up by the Applicant;
within seven (7) days of the date of issuance of this order, deliver to the Applicant in electronic format (either uploaded to the Applicant’s Dropbox account or on a flash drive, at the Applicant’s direction) and at no cost to the Applicant, all the Requested Core Records (other than the financial records);
within thirty (30) days of the date of which the Applicant pays $378.00 to the Respondent, deliver to the Applicant in electronic format (either uploaded to the Applicant’s Dropbox account or on a flash drive, at the Applicant’s direction) all of the Requested Non-Core Records (other than the financial records); and

within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance of this order:

pay to the Applicant costs in the amount of $125; and

pay to the Applicant a penalty in the amount of $1,000.

In my opinion, there are two important rulings in this award. First, the adjudicator deeply discounted the corporation's costs for providing the non-core documentation. Secondly, the fees for records were to be paid to the condo corporation, not to the manager or condo agent.


Joe Micieli v TSCC No. 1753
Case: 2018-00025R
Adjudicator: Patricia McQuaid, Member
Date: 25 June 2018

TSCC No. 1753 is a mid-size mixed-use condo at 935 Sheppard Ave. West.

The owner asked for eight records and only three were still outstanding.

 Mr. Micieli clarified during the hearing that with respect to Lux’s credentials (Lux being the Respondent’s current property management company), he was seeking information regarding how long Lux had been providing management services, whether Lux was properly insured and whether its place of business was properly secured for retention of the Respondent’s records and, finally, whether it carried WSIB coverage.

Prior to this Decision, the owner recieved the signed contract between TSCC #1753 and Lux Management Inc. (“Lux”) and Lux’s credentials.

TheTribunal ordered that:
TSCC No. 1753, in accordance with the undertaking given at this hearing, shall notify the Applicant about the completion of the 2016-2017 audited financial statement as soon as these are available.
TSCC No.1753, in accordance with the undertaking given at this hearing, shall provide the 2016 and 2017 (to November 30, 2017) bank statements, with copies of cheques written on the account, to the Applicant free of any charge for photocopying, by no later than June 30, 2018.

The weakness of CAT is shown here by the owner having to wait until until the year-old audited financial statements are released by the board. In my experience, that can take a very long time indeed.


Janet Cangiano v. MTCC No. 962
Case: 2018-00041R
Adjudicator: Mary Ann Spencer
Date: 19 July 2018

This case makes it clear that the scrutineers at condo AGMs have the responsibility to insure that the proxies were properly submitted. It is very clear to me that most scrutineers, and owners, do not realize this as they are usually not given any instructions what-so-ever.

The owner submitted a Records Request for electronic delivery of “legible and unaltered” copies of the proxy forms submitted at an AGM. 

She is concerned that an “extremely high number of proxies” were submitted at the AGM. Her experience, as an ex-director, is that 10 to 15 proxy forms were submitted in previous years; almost 40 were submitted in 2017. She is requesting un-redacted copies of the forms because redaction of the owners’ names would not allow her to determine that the owners themselves submitted the forms.

One of her concerns is that proxies for the AGM were being solicited by the condo’s building superintendent. Several other owners have told her that they found it unusual that the superintendent was soliciting proxies.

The corporation's management confirmed that the corporation has a 2017 AGM registration form which indicates which owners attended the meeting in person and which owners submitted proxy forms.

Asked by Ms. Cangiano's Counsel if the corporation would be prepared to release a copy of this document to her, the management representive stated that because there has been no request for this record, there has been no discussion and she would have to follow the process of sending the request to the condo’s Board of Directors.

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that a narrow interpretation of the legislative provisions does not permit a proper audit of election results and cannot be what the legislative drafters intended; there must be practical ways for elections to be properly audited.

The Applicant has valid reasons for requesting un-redacted proxy forms in order to audit the Respondent’s 2017 AGM election; the significant increase in the number of forms submitted in 2017 compared to previous years and the fact that the superintendent solicited proxy forms are “highly suspicious” circumstances. Potential proxy fraud is an issue of serious concern to condominium owners across the province.

The election scrutineers had the opportunity to review the proxy forms.

The condo's lawyer responded that there are no grounds for providing the full records the Applicant requests. The election scrutineers had the opportunity to review the proxy forms.

There is no evidence that the solicitation of proxy forms by the superintendent was improper.

The provisions of the Act are very clear. An owner is not entitled to receive the information contained on proxy forms which identifies specific units or owners unless a by-law of the corporation permits this.

The Applicant is not entitled to examine or obtain un-redacted copies of the proxy forms submitted at the corporation's 2017 AGM.

The corporation requests that the Tribunal award it costs of $3,001.85 representing the legal fees it incurred in this matter because the Applicant knew or ought to have known that she was not entitled to receive un-redacted copies of proxy forms so she filed an “unmeritorious” application.

The adjudicator wrote:
"I have no reason to conclude that the application before me was either frivolous or not filed in good faith; the Applicant submitted reasoned arguments asking the Tribunal to apply a broad reading of the legislation. That the application was unsuccessful does not in itself comprise an exceptional reason to award costs. Therefore, I order no costs in this matter."

1.  Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 962 provide Janet Cangiano electronic copies of the proxy forms submitted at its November 16, 2017 Annual General meeting (the “records”) redacted for information that identifies specific units or owners of the corporation.

2. The fee, payable by Ms Cangiano in advance, for the preparation and production of the records shall not exceed $27.60.

3.  Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 962 shall provide the records to Ms Cangiano within 30 days of its receipt of the fee.


Mara Bossio v. MTCC No. 965
File number:   2017-00047R
Adjudicator: Lai-King Hum
Date Released: 06 July 2018

What most condo owners will find interesting in this case is the decision on costs. The condo corporation hired a lawyer and they were unsuccessful in getting any of their costs paid by the owner.

The condo corporation did not seek recovery of any actual Tribunal fees or expenses pursuant to Rule 30.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules. However, based on its written costs submissions, it sought significant legal fees of $6,450.00, representing partial payment of its actual legal costs to deal with this Application, being $10,899.56, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

When costs can be expected
The adjudicator explained when a party at CAT can expect their expenses to be paid:

"There must be “exceptional reasons”, and for that, I must find more than the Applicant not being successful on the Application and taking an unreasonable position. While unsuccessful, the Applicant felt truly aggrieved and believed that she was entitled to insist on the Records so that she could seek remedies by way of mediation and arbitration. Having found that the records fall into the “actual or contemplated litigation” exception, it might in hindsight have been unreasonable for her to have pursued the Application but that by itself is not exceptional.

To find “exceptional reasons”, I would need evidence that the Applicant had been grossly unreasonable, or had taken positions that unduly complicated this Application, or had acted in bad faith or with malice, or took some other step beyond being unsuccessful and unreasonable. I found no such evidence in this case."


Terence Arrowsmith v PCC No. 94
Case: 2018-00128R
Adjudicator: Laurie Sanford, Member
Date: 13 November 2018

Mr. Terence Arrowsmith, a unit owner, requested records from PCC #94 on two subjects.
Paper copies of the Minutes of the Board meetings for the 12 months prior to March 1, 2018.
Paper copies of the receipts and records relating to the removal of mould from the sauna.
The condominium corporation did not dispute that Mr. Arrowsmith was entitled to the records he requested. PCC #94’s position is that Mr. Arrowsmith has not correctly completed the form used to request the records.

Mr. Arrowsmith requested costs of $500, which included his time, against PCC #94 and asked the “Tribunal” to impose a penalty on PCC #94 for their failure to provide the records he requested without a reasonable excuse.

PCC #94’s conduct in advancing a reason for refusing Mr. Arrowsmith the records he seeks and then declining to participate further in the proceeding had the effect of forcing Mr. Arrowsmith to proceed through all three stages of the Tribunal’s dispute resolution process.
 It is appropriate in these circumstances for PCC #94 to pay Mr. Arrowsmith a reasonable amount for the costs he assumed. This includes the cost incurred by Mr. Arrowsmith in initiating each stage of this proceeding, in the amount of $200.

"It is also appropriate for PCC#94 to reimburse Mr. Arrowsmith for his out-of-pocket expenses, in this case, $25 for registered mail. While Mr. Arrowsmith did not provide documentary evidence for this expense, I accept Mr. Arrowsmith’s statement that the expense was incurred and note that it was open to PCC #94 to contest the amount, which was not done.

Concerning the time that Mr. Arrowsmith has spent in pursuing this claim, Mr. Arrowsmith did not provide details about the hours he spent and how he calculated the cost of his time. However, I find that his claim of $275 is reasonable. I base this conclusion on the interaction I had with Mr. Arrowsmith during Stage 3 and an estimate I made of the time he would have spent in previous stages, given the straightforward nature of the issues in this case.

Again, it should be noted that it was open to PCC #94 to contest the cost claim and the condominium corporation chose not to raise any issue. I find that $275 is an appropriate award of costs for the time involved. Therefore, I find that PCC #94 must pay Mr. Arrowsmith’s costs in the amount of $500, within 30 days of the date of this Decision."

The Act gives the Tribunal the jurisdiction to order a penalty be paid by PCC#94 to Mr. Arrowsmith if the Tribunal considers that PCC#94 refused to provide Mr. Arrowsmith the records he requested without reasonable excuse.

PCC #94 gave a reason for denying the claims that was without merit. As a result, Mr. Arrowsmith was obliged to apply to the Tribunal. Even during the course of the hearing, it was open to PCC #94 to acknowledge that it had no reasonable excuse for refusing to provide the requested records and to provide the records at any time.

The reason for penalties
 In the absence of a specific purpose set out in the Act, I note that generally penalties operate to do two things. First, they operate to sanction conduct that is considered undesirable. Second, they communicate to the class of interested people and organisations that some conduct is unacceptable.

Here it was unfair to require Mr. Arrowsmith to go through all three stages of the Tribunal’s proceeding to obtain records to which he was entitled. I find that $500 is a reasonable penalty in the circumstances of this case. This amount should be payable within 30 days of the date of this Decision.

Conclusion & order
The Tribunal directs PCC#94 to provide to Mr. Arrowsmith the following records within 14 days of the date of this Decision:
paper copies of the minutes of the Board meetings of PCC#94 for the 12 months prior to March 1, 2018, and
paper copies of contracts and payments made to two subcontractors, Spectrum Building Services and Respond Plus, for mould removal work done on the sauna and mailroom, respectively, during the month of November, 2017.
These records will be provided without cost to Mr. Arrowsmith.

 The Tribunal directs PCC #94 to pay costs to Mr. Arrowsmith in the amount of $500 within 30 days of the date of this Decision.

 The Tribunal also directs PCC #94 to pay a penalty in the amount of $500 to Mr. Arrowsmith within 30 days of the date of this Decision.


Rafael Barreto-Rivera v MTCC No. 704
Case: 2018-00002R
Adjudicator: Patricia McQuaid, Member
Date: 27 November 2018

Rafael Barreto-Rivera (the “Applicant”) is a unit owner of  MTCC 704 (or the “Respondent”),  a small condominium consisting of eight residential units.

Mr. Barreto-Rivera made a Request for Records related to one record: minutes of the February 2, 2016 owners’ meeting.

The Applicant and Respondent agree that no formal minutes of the February 2, 2016 meeting were ever drafted by the Respondent.

The Applicant submits that the Respondent’s failure to comply with s. 55(1) of the Act, specifically the requirement that the condominium corporation keep the minutes of owners’ meetings has violated his right as a unit owner to obtain timely access to what he characterizes to be an important record.

The Applicant seeks both costs and a penalty as a result of the Respondent’s failure to maintain and provide the minutes in question.

The Respondent states that it has distributed a summary of the discussion at the February 2, 2016 meeting. It has agreed that these are not minutes and has asserted that minutes were not required as the meeting was not an owners’ meeting per se, but rather an information session for owners about a particular issue: windows.

Issues & analysis
Issue 1:
Did the Respondent refuse to provide minutes for the February 2, 2016 meeting? If the answer to this question is yes, did the Respondent have a reasonable excuse for that refusal?

For an analysis of this first issue, it is necessary to have an understanding of the chronology of how the February 2, 2016 meeting came to be and the subsequent requests for minutes of that meeting, as revealed in the documents filed at the hearing. Further, the critical fact that defines this dispute is that minutes for the meeting do not exist. Therefore, I must also consider whether, in light of this fact, there can be a refusal to examine or obtain a copy of the record requested. Corollary to this is the issue of the adequacy of record keeping pursuant to s. 55 of the Act.

Chronology of Events
The starting point in the timeline is a January 4, 2016 email to the condominium owners from the secretary of the condominium, in which she noted that the Board of Directors (the “Board”) was arranging to hold an “owners’ meeting” in February with the heritage architect to answer questions about window repair and replacement.

The minutes of the January 5, 2016 Board meeting reference, with respect to the windows, that the Board would be setting up an “owners’ meeting” with the architect to discuss the windows plan for the building.

In a January 7th email with the subject line “Storm windows, owners meeting Feb 1,” the condominium secretary confirmed the date, time and location for the meeting. The date was corrected to February 2nd in a subsequent email.

 On January 30th, another email was sent confirming the meeting, which is referred to as the “owners’ meeting”.

 The meeting took place as scheduled on February 2nd. The next day, the Applicant sent an email to the Board and owners with three suggestions flowing from “yesterday evening’s owners’ meeting”.

 On February 7th, the condominium secretary circulated a three page summary of the discussion at the February 2nd “windows meeting”.

The Applicant sent an email in response on February 12th. In that email, he set out what he believed to be important omissions from the summary. He ended his email by stating that he looked forward to receipt of the official minutes of the February 2, 2016 owners’ meeting as required by the Act.

There appears to have been a Board meeting following the owners’ meeting, also on February 2nd. The minutes of that meeting reveal that three Board members were present and there was one business item, a motion to approve the architect proceeding with research into window restoration options.

As noted previously, the Applicant and the Respondent agree that the summary delivered to the owners on February 7th were not minutes of the meeting.

Minutes of the February 2nd meeting with owners were never forthcoming.

The Applicant sent repeated requests for draft minutes for the meeting and pointed out the obligation under their condominium by-laws and the Act to do so.

It should have been clear to the Board, based on the Applicant’s February 12th email, that the Applicant was of the view that the February 2nd meeting was in fact an owners’ meeting that required minutes.

Underlying that repeated request was the concern that without minutes being circulated there was no opportunity for owners to comment upon and subsequently approve those minutes, and therefore, flowing from that, no official MTCC 704 record of the meeting.

In his evidence, the Applicant stated that in his 32 years as an owner, owners’ meetings have always been the subject of routinely produced draft minutes which are distributed for subsequent review, corrections made if necessary and final approval given by the unit owners who were present at the meeting.

It was not until the May 2017 Board meeting that the secretary, when asked by the Applicant why minutes for the February 2, 2016 meeting had not been produced, explained that the February 2nd meeting was not an owners’ meeting per se as no official agenda had been distributed or voted upon, and no motions were accepted, made or voted upon. The secretary stated that detailed notes had been distributed and she would not be reformatting them as minutes.

Almost a year later, at the April 2018 Board meeting, after the Applicant had initiated the Tribunal process, the Board invited the Applicant or any other owner who had an issue with the notes from the “windows meeting” to submit corrections or amendments to the notes which the Board would then distribute to all owners.

The Respondent, in closing submissions, stated that the Board reasoned that the February 2, 2016 meeting was an informal session rather than any kind of meeting where official business was taking place, with no votes taking place or agenda. While informal notes were taken, they determined that they were not comprehensive enough to constitute a proper set of minutes.

The facts as set out in the above chronology belie those assertions. In all the communications to owners prior to February 2nd, the meeting was called an “owners meeting”. While perhaps not a formal agenda, it was clear to the owners what was to be discussed as per the January 30, 2016 email. The notes made at the February 2nd meeting appear to contain some detail about what transpired at the meeting (though they are not adequate from the Applicant’s perspective). Further, there is no definition of “owners’ meeting” that suggests it must include a vote.

Characterizing the meeting, for the first time, 15 months after the event, as an information session, and not an owners’ meeting per se, is not credible. I need not ascribe any motive to the Board that they may have been attempting to avoid their duties under the Act. However, the various emails exchanged between the Applicant and Respondent after the meeting show that a significant expenditure was being contemplated and the issue of whether that expenditure was appropriate, and the manner by which it would be funded, were contentious issues. Based on the evidence, this was an important owners’ meeting.

I do find, based on the evidence before me, that minutes for the February 2, 2016 meeting, appropriately characterized as an owners’ meeting, were required under s. 55(1) of the Act. While the summary that was circulated might be considered sufficient to qualify as a record of the meeting, as inferred from the Board’s April 18, 2018 offer to owners, the summary/notes are not considered by either User to be minutes and were not intended to be such, as readily admitted by the Respondent. And critically from the Applicant’s perspective, there was no opportunity for owners to comment and vote upon them.

Clearly, the record in question, does not exist. Does this equate to a refusal to provide the record, without reasonable excuse?

The facts as found lead me to the conclusion that it does. For the Tribunal to conclude that there is no lack of compliance with a request for records when the corporation fails to keep the record that it ought to have kept, would open the door to a corporation intentionally not maintaining a record so as to avoid its disclosure obligations under the Act.
Issue 2:
Does the refusal to provide the record warrant an award of costs or a penalty?

The Applicant seeks reimbursement of his costs paid to the Tribunal in the amount of $200. The award of costs is discretionary. The Applicant states that this proceeding, and an award of his costs and a penalty are all “in order to ensure that in future, the Board in a timely manner diligently produces, safely stores and properly distributes the minutes of MTCC #704 owners’ meetings” as required by the by-laws and the Act.

The Applicant utilized the CAT process as he was entitled to do, but his goal was not to obtain a record. Rather, he wanted to make an important point, as an owner, to his Board. He has been successful in that regard. However, in the circumstances of this case, where the Applicant consciously chose to pursue the CAT process for this specific purpose and recognizing that the Respondent’s conduct throughout the CAT process has been, for the most part, timely and appropriate, I do not find that an award of costs is appropriate.

On the issue of penalty, I have reached a different conclusion. Section 1.44(1) 6 gives discretion to the Tribunal to order a corporation to pay a penalty to a person entitled to examine or obtain copies under s.55(3) if the Tribunal considers that the corporation has, without reasonable excuse, refused the person copies under the section.

The situation in which the Applicant and Respondent have been placed was avoidable. And this being a small condominium where owners and Board members are indeed close neighbours would seem to make the situation more regrettable.

The Respondent had ample opportunity to produce minutes for the February 2, 2016 owners’ meeting at a time somewhat contemporaneous to the event, within the period specified by its by-laws, or in short order following the Applicant’s demand. It steadfastly refused to do so. However, the Respondent has submitted that if it is determined that minutes ought to have been recorded, they accept responsibility for that and will not make that mistake going forward.

On the facts of this case, there was no genuine effort by the Board to produce minutes for the meeting. The change in the legislated penalty from a fixed amount of $500 to a range of up to $5,000, suggests the legislature intends that the penalty imposed by this Tribunal should proportionately reflect the nature or severity of the refusal.

In weighing these factors I find that a penalty at the lower range, in the amount of $500 is appropriate.

Conclusion & order
I find that the Applicant was entitled to receive minutes of the February 2, 2016 owners’ meeting and that MTCC No.704 refused to provide these without reasonable excuse.

Therefore, pursuant to the authority set out in section 1.44(1) of the Act, the Tribunal orders that:
MTCC No.704 shall pay a penalty in the amount of $500 to Mr. Barreto-Rivera within 30 days of the date of this decision.
The Applicant shall be given a credit toward his next monthly contribution to common expenses equal to his proportionate share of the $500 penalty (applying the proportions set out in schedule D to the declaration) as if he has prepaid the same.


Michael Lahrkamp v MTCC No. 932
Case: 2018-00272R
Adjudicator: Ian Darling, Chair
Date: 13 November 2018

The Applicant’s Request for Records seeks four categories of records:
The list of Owners and Mortgagees;
The most recently approved financial statements;
Minutes of board meetings held within the preceding 12 months; and
Ballots used in the Annual General Meeting elections on May 23, 2018.

In its “Response to Request for Records” dated June 22, 2018 MTCC No. 932 partially granted the request: it provided the Minutes and copies of the ballots. The Respondent indicated that the financial statements were previously provided as part of a request for records submitted in April 2018.

The Respondent refused to provide the list of owners stating: “You are a vexatious litigant. Your request is not related to your interest as an owner. Section 55(4) of the Condominium Act, 1998: records relating to actual or contemplated litigation.”

Justice Koehnen issued an order under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act prohibiting the Applicant from “commencing any proceeding in any court against the Corporation, its present, future or former directors, or its property manager, except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.” Both parties acknowledged this order.

A court decision stated that:“it would require very clear wording in either the Court Order or the legislation to bar a person from access to the Tribunal.”

Although the vexatious litigant order did not apply to this Tribunal, the adjudicator found that the case was vexatious because it was an attempt to continue a dispute already determined by the Courts.

The Tribunal concludes that the case has been determined to be vexatious and should be dismissed without holding a hearing

My take on this
Mr. Lahrkamp already had the latest audited financial statements, he got the board minutes and he got a copy of the ballots. The only thing that the board refused to give him was a list of the owners.

He can go to Toronto city hall, easy walking distance from his condo, and get a list of the owners from the city records for free.

I notice that the condo's law firm had two lawyers working on this matter. That would not be cheap so the condo is out their legal fees.

Mr. Lahrkamp has had a long ten year dispute with his condo board and as long as he lives there, I doubt that it will ever end.