Does Recording a Condo Meeting Create a Permanent Corporate Record? Not Necessarily.

What the CAO currently says

On its meeting-minutes webpage, the CAO correctly states that condominium corporations are not required to record meetings. It then says that, when they do, owners will “generally be entitled to the recordings” and classifies meeting recordings as non-core records.^[1]

On the same page, the CAO states that owners are not entitled to draft minutes.

Read literally, the page appears to produce an odd result:

• An owner cannot require the corporation to provide unfinished draft minutes, but may generally request the raw recording used to produce those minutes.

That paragraph is incomplete because it skips the threshold question: Is the particular recording actually a record of the corporation?

Calling something a “non-core record” does not answer that question. “Core” and “non-core” are classifications applied to records. A file must first qualify as a record of the corporation before the distinction becomes relevant.

The CAO paragraph does not explain:

• whether the recording was temporary working material;
• whether it was retained after the minutes were prepared;
• whether the corporation had possession or control of it;
• whether it remained available to directors or management;
• whether it was kept by an independent minute-taker;
• why it was created;
• whether the corporation had adopted a routine deletion policy; or
• whether the requester had a proper condominium-related purpose.

These distinctions mattered directly in the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s decision in King v. York Region Condominium Corporation No. 692.^[4]

What section 55 of the Condominium Act actually requires

Section 55(1) of the Act begins with a broad obligation:^[2]

“The corporation shall keep adequate records, including the following records…”

The listed records include financial records, governing documents, agreements, reserve fund materials, voting records and, most importantly for this discussion:

“A minute book containing the minutes of owners’ meetings and the minutes of board meetings.”

The legislation therefore makes the minutes the required permanent record of the meeting. Audio and video recordings are not expressly identified in section 55 as records that must be created or kept. See also our overview of Ontario Condo Act minutes requirements.

The word “including” means the statutory list should not necessarily be treated as exhaustive. A document or recording not expressly named in the list could still become a record of the corporation, depending on the circumstances. But the reverse is equally important: the mere existence of information relating to the corporation does not automatically make it a corporate record.

Section 55(3) gives owners, purchasers and mortgagees a right to examine or obtain copies of “the records of the corporation.” It does not provide a general right to every piece of raw information, private note, temporary file or unfinished work product used in operating the corporation.

What Ontario Regulation 48/01 adds

Section 13.1(1) of Ontario Regulation 48/01 prescribes additional categories of records that corporations must keep.^[3] These include such things as status certificates, director disclosures, employee-related records, litigation and insurance records, unit-specific records, warranties, professional reports, plans and expired agreements.

The prescribed list does not specifically identify audio or video recordings of meetings as records.

The regulation then establishes retention periods for records falling within section 55 and section 13.1. For example:

• meeting minutes must be kept at all times;
• voting records and proxies are generally kept for at least 90 days;
• various financial and operational records are kept for seven years; and
• records without another specified retention period are kept for the period the board determines is necessary to perform the corporation’s objects and duties or exercise its powers.

Again, these retention rules apply to records. They do not expressly say that every temporary electronic file generated during the preparation of a record must itself be preserved.

What happens when a records request is received?

Section 13.1(3) can extend the applicable retention period when a request is received while the corporation retains, or is required to retain, the requested record.^[3] The extension may continue for six months or until related proceedings or settlement obligations conclude.

That provision is important, but it should not be misunderstood. It presupposes that the item being requested is a record. It does not state that an owner can transform any temporary file into a corporate record simply by requesting it.

Where classification is genuinely disputed and a request arrives while the file still exists, the prudent course is to obtain legal advice before deleting it. That is sensible dispute management. It is not the same as saying that every recording must be permanently retained from the moment it is created.

The King decision

In King v. York Region Condominium Corporation No. 692, 2022 ONCAT 80, the owner requested:^[4]

• what he called the “original” draft minutes prepared by the recording secretary; and
• audio recordings from a third-party virtual meeting provider of two annual general meetings.

The owner wanted to compare the drafts and recordings against the approved minutes because he believed statements had been inaccurately recorded or altered.

The recording secretary’s working material

The Tribunal found that the recording secretary’s preliminary notes were work product rather than records of the corporation. It also reaffirmed that unapproved draft minutes did not form part of the corporation’s records.

That finding recognizes an important operational reality. A professional preparing an official record will usually create preliminary material along the way:

• handwritten notes;
• typed notes;
• rough outlines;
• transcripts;
• annotations;
• draft language; and
• temporary recordings.

The final corporate record is not necessarily every piece of material used in producing it.

The third-party virtual meeting provider recordings

The evidence concerning the audio was less clear. The corporation said that the recording served a function similar to personal notes: it could assist the minute-taker in preparing the minutes.

However, a third-party virtual meeting provider apparently delivered the recording to property management rather than using it itself to prepare the minutes. The Tribunal observed that this suggested two competing possibilities:

• the recording could be working material analogous to the minute-taker’s notes; or
• because it was being kept on the corporation’s behalf, it could potentially become a record of the corporation in some circumstances.

The Tribunal did not hold that all meeting recordings are corporate records. Nor did it hold that owners are automatically entitled to every recording. It expressly confined its conclusion to the particular facts and stated that it was not deciding that audio recordings are always—or never—records.

The owner was ultimately not entitled to the audio. His request was aimed at proving his preferred wording of particular exchanges, despite the minutes already adequately recording the business transacted. The Tribunal found that this purpose did not satisfy the requirement that the request relate to the requester’s interests as an owner, having regard to the purposes of the Act.

What King actually establishes

King does not support the broad proposition that:

• Every time a condominium meeting is recorded, the recording becomes a non-core record available to owners.

Instead, it supports a fact-specific approach:

• note-taker working material can remain work product rather than a corporate record;
• an audio recording used as a note-taking aid may be analogous to that work product;
• a recording retained on behalf of and controlled by the corporation may potentially become a corporate record; and
• even when an item is arguably a record, an owner’s right to it is not necessarily automatic.

That is considerably more nuanced than the CAO’s short FAQ paragraph.

Recording a meeting is not the same as keeping a meeting recording

The central distinction is between the act of recording and the practice of retention.

Temporary note-taking recording

A stronger argument that the recording is temporary working material exists where:

• the stated purpose is to assist in preparing accurate minutes;
• attendees are informed of that limited purpose;
• the recording is not treated as an official account of the meeting;
• it is not stored in the corporation’s permanent records repository;
• directors and owners do not receive continuing access to it;
• it is used only by the minute-taker or processing service;
• it is routinely deleted after completing its stated purpose; and
• the same deletion practice is followed consistently rather than selectively.

In this situation, the permanent product is the approved minutes. The recording functions as the modern equivalent of temporary notes used to prepare them.

Retained corporate recording

The argument that a recording has become a corporation record becomes stronger where:

• the board or management retains it indefinitely;
• it remains available in the corporation’s account or document system;
• directors repeatedly rely on it after the minutes are produced;
• it is used to revisit disputes or verify what particular speakers said;
• it is shared with owners or third parties;
• the corporation indexes or archives recordings by meeting;
• it is described as an official meeting record; or
• it is kept without any defined operational purpose or deletion schedule.

In that scenario, the corporation is no longer merely making a temporary note-taking recording. It is maintaining an ongoing audio or video archive of its meetings.

The law does not require corporations to create such an archive. But when a corporation chooses to create and maintain one, it becomes much easier to argue that the archive forms part of the corporation’s records.

Is deleting the recording concealment?

Not ordinarily.

Routine deletion carried out under a genuine, consistently applied information-management policy is not the same as destroying evidence to prevent disclosure.

Businesses, professionals and condominium corporations routinely delete temporary material when it is no longer required:

• duplicate files;
• processing copies;
• temporary exports;
• rough notes;
• cached files;
• obsolete drafts; and
• recordings used only to prepare another document.

The Act requires adequate records. It does not require corporations to preserve every intermediate item involved in creating those records.

A recording may therefore be deleted as ordinary housekeeping where:

• its limited purpose has been completed;
• the minutes and related documents have been produced;
• the corporation never adopted the recording as an official record;
• the deletion follows a previously established schedule;
• deletion is automatic or consistently applied; and
• the file is not being selectively removed to frustrate an existing dispute.

The strongest practice is not to make deletion decisions meeting by meeting. The board should approve a clear policy in advance and apply it uniformly.

An ad hoc decision to delete one particular recording immediately after an owner complains about it will naturally look different from automatic deletion carried out after every meeting under a standing policy. Motive, timing and consistency matter.

Must the recording be kept until the minutes are approved?

Neither section 55 nor Regulation 48/01 expressly imposes such a requirement on meeting recordings.

The legislation requires the corporation to maintain adequate minutes and to retain the minute book permanently. It does not prescribe a mandatory lifespan for a temporary recording used to assist with preparing those minutes.

A corporation may choose to retain the recording until the draft has been prepared, reviewed or approved. That may be operationally useful, but the longer the corporation keeps and uses the recording, the stronger the argument may become that it is being maintained as corporate information rather than merely used as transient working material.

There is therefore no universal retention period that will suit every corporation. The board should select a period that is reasonably connected to the recording’s defined purpose and avoid indefinite retention by default.

Can an owner request a recording before the minutes are approved?

An owner can request anything. The real questions are:

• whether the requested item is a record of the corporation;
• whether it still exists;
• whether the owner is entitled to it under section 55 and the regulation; and
• whether any statutory exception applies.

The fact that the minutes have not yet been approved does not, by itself, settle the status of a separate recording. But neither does it automatically make the recording accessible.

King is instructive because the Tribunal held that the recording secretary’s preliminary work and draft minutes were not records, and it declined to provide the audio recording on the facts before it.^[4]

Accordingly, the CAO’s suggestion that an owner will “generally” be entitled to recordings should not be treated as an automatic rule detached from the circumstances.^[1]

Does using a third-party minute-taker or technology provider change the analysis?

Not automatically.

Using an outside recording secretary, meeting host, transcription provider or minutes-preparation platform does not by itself determine whether a recording is a corporation record.

Relevant questions may include:

• Who initiated the recording?
• For what purpose?
• Who can access it?
• Does the service provider use it only to produce the minutes?
• Is a copy delivered back to the corporation?
• Does management retain it after the work is completed?
• Can the board continue playing it?
• Is it deleted automatically?
• Is it treated as the provider’s temporary working material or as part of the corporation’s archive?

In King, the fact that a third-party virtual meeting provider gave the recording to property management created uncertainty about whether it was merely work product or was instead being kept on the corporation’s behalf.^[4]

That illustrates why purpose and retention should be defined clearly before the meeting.

A sensible policy for condominium boards

Boards wishing to use recordings as note-taking aids can reduce uncertainty by adopting a written policy addressing the following points.

1. Define the purpose. State that meetings may be recorded solely to assist with preparing accurate minutes, motions and action items.
2. Identify the official record. Confirm that the approved minutes—not the audio or video—is intended to constitute the corporation’s permanent official meeting record.
3. Give notice. Advise participants that the meeting is being recorded, explain why and disclose the intended deletion practice.
4. Restrict access. Limit access to the minute-taker, manager or service provider responsible for preparing the minutes.
5. Avoid unnecessary copies. Do not allow recordings to accumulate in email accounts, local computers, Zoom cloud storage, shared drives and permanent document libraries.
6. Establish routine deletion. Specify an objective deletion event or period, such as after the minutes and action-item report have been generated and delivered, or after a short defined quality-review period.
7. Apply the policy consistently. Do not retain recordings from some meetings indefinitely while claiming that recordings from other meetings are temporary.
8. Address exceptional circumstances separately. Where legal proceedings, an insurance issue or a specific preservation concern arises before scheduled deletion, obtain legal advice about that particular recording rather than abandoning the general policy for every meeting.

Suggested meeting notice

A corporation could use wording along these lines:

This wording does not magically determine the recording’s legal status. Substance matters more than labels. The corporation must actually follow the practice described.

Suggested board policy wording

Again, the policy is most effective when the technology and actual workflow match it.

The practical conclusion for boards

Condominium boards should not be frightened away from using responsible recording technology simply because the CAO’s webpage describes recordings as non-core records.

The more accurate position is:

• the Act requires adequate minutes and permanent retention of the minute book;
• the Act does not require meetings to be audio- or video-recorded;
• neither the Act nor Regulation 48/01 specifically requires all meeting recordings to be retained;
• temporary note-taking material is not automatically a corporation record;
• King confirms that a minute-taker’s preliminary work can be work product rather than a record;
• King also confirms that the status of an audio recording depends on the particular facts;
• indefinite corporate retention can strengthen the argument that a recording has become a record; and
• consistent deletion after completion of a defined temporary purpose is ordinary information housekeeping, not inherently concealment.

The safest approach is not to pretend that recordings never raise records issues. It is to use them for a clearly defined purpose, control access, avoid indefinite retention and delete them consistently once that purpose has been fulfilled.

A corporation should be required to preserve its official records. It should not be required to preserve every temporary tool used to create them.

Legal disclaimer

This article provides general information about Ontario condominium records and meeting-recording practices. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Whether a particular audio or video recording constitutes a record of a condominium corporation will depend on the specific facts, including how and why it was created, who controls it, how it is used, how long it is retained and whether any legal proceeding or other preservation obligation applies. Condominium corporations should obtain advice from qualified Ontario condominium counsel regarding their own policies, records requests and particular circumstances.