Condo Owners Are Not Entitled to Email Contact Information Of Other Owners
Electronic communication including email communication is increasingly replacing other forms of written transmission such as snail mail or facsimile. A recent Ontario Small Claims Court decision looked at the issue of whether a condo owner, who is entitled to obtain the addresses for service of other owners was entitled to email addresses also. The Deputy Judge reviewed the Condominium Act and determined that it does not require a condo board to provide an owner with the email addresses of co-owners.
The Condominium Act requires that a condo board must provide a condo owner with the addresses for service of all unit owners as part of the requirements that entitle an owner to fulsome information about the finances of the corporation and the board's decisions and activities. Providing the addresses for service serves the purpose of allowing an owner to notify co-owners of any concerns and involve co-owners in the process that might be reasonably expected to affect the condominium.
In the case, one owner requested a significant number of documents from the condo's records including a number of historical records. Among her demands was a request that co-owner's addresses include email addresses. The condo board refused to produce the email addresses citing privacy concerns and was unable to provide some of the historical records as they had been timely destroyed. The owner sued to obtain the email addresses and also requested that the condo board be penalized for having failed to retain all the historical records.
As noted, the Deputy Judge narrowed construed the provision of the Condominium Act and ruled that the requirement to provide addresses for service did not include email addresses.
The Lesson: Arguably this decision requires a concerned owner to incur more costs, both in terms of time and money, to mail information to co-owners, the respect for privacy cannot be overlooked. An owner who wishes to advise co-owners of concerns or alleged impropriety may still do so, albeit in a less efficient manner.
Wu v Carleton Condominium Corporation, 2016 CanLII 30525 https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscsm/doc/2016/2016canlii30525/2016canlii30525.pdf
The content and the opinions expressed here is informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Nor does reading or commenting on it create a lawyer/client relationship with the author. I encourage you to contact me directly at adrianlawoffice@gmail.com if you have specific legal questions or concerns.
The author encourages you to share this article on social media.