PCC 389 & CAT—Part 3
Three Condominium Authority Tribunal losses in a row. PCC 389 strikes out. Too bad for the Applicants that the penalities are getting smaller.
Condominium Authority Tribunal
Syed Razi Haider Naqvi v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 389, 2020 ONCAT 11
Case: 2019-00252R
Adjudicator: Mary Ann Spencer, Member
Date: 29 April 2020
The Applicant: Syed Razi Haider Naqvi Self-represented
The Respondent: PCC No. 389 Azza Nefzaoui, Agent
On September 19, 2019, Syed Razi Haider Naqvi submitted a Request for Records asking for an electronic copy of the Record of Owners and Mortgagees. The Respondent advised that it would not provide the requested record.
The Applicant requested an Order from the Tribunal directing the Respondent to provide the Record of Owners and Mortgagees. He also asked the Tribunal to assess a penalty to the Respondent for refusing to provide the record and he requested his costs.
The Respondent’s position is that the Applicant is not entitled to receive the requested record because he has a history of circulating private information on social media. Further, the corporation was acting in accordance with the provisions of the Personal Information and Protection of Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) with respect to the release of owners’ information.
Ms Nefzaoui testified that Mr. Naqvi has a history of “not safeguarding private information” and stated that he had circulated information on social media platforms and shared information with other individuals who would not safeguard it. She indicated that there was a possibility that the information might be inappropriately used by others for commercial or criminal activities.
The adjudicator found that the Applicant is entitled to examine or obtain a copy of the Record of Owners and Mortgagees and that the Respondent refused to provide the record without reasonable excuse. The adjudicator assessed a penalty of $500 and awarded the Applicant costs of $200.
Also, to ensure the Applicant does not pay any portion of the costs or penalty awards, the Applicant shall be given a credit towards the common expenses attributable to his unit in the amount equivalent to his unit’s proportionate share of the above costs and penalty.
https://bit.ly/3k1em1e
Defaming the Applicant is an old legal trick.
“a history of “not safeguarding private information”; “he had circulated information on social media platforms”; “shared information with other individuals who would not safeguard it”. “There was a possibility that the information might be inappropriately used by others for commercial or criminal activities.”
This is smearing that has been used against other individual owners. It is raised by certain lawyers to discredit owners and to paint the directors as unfortunate innocent victims.
—H. Marshall