MEMO TO RESIDENTS June 17^th, 2022

       On February 15^th, 2022, the Court of Queen’s Bench issued a ruling that the Bylaw amendment proposed by the Board to alter traditional unit factor apportionment of Reserve Fund Expenditures, was invalid. As a result, a correction and credit to those negatively impacted by the unlawful assessments is in fairness necessary. On March 11, 2022, the Board issued a memo to residents advising that “there are assessment adjustments that need to be made to bring practice in line with Bylaw 3”. However, on June 8^th, 2022, the Board issued a further memo advising residents of their refusal to establish any corrective measure to correct the previous reserve assessments that were deemed invalid by the Court.

1. The Board’s memo states: “The Condominium Property Act specifically and clearly states that refunds of reserve assessments cannot be made. Within the Act there are no exceptions”. HOWEVER, the “reserve assessments” included in the Board’s proposed bylaw amendment presented to the Court for its review were deemed to be unlawful and invalid as a result of the Court’s February 15^th, 2022 decision. Provisions within the Condominium Property Act regarding “refunds of reserve assessments” DOES NOT APPLY TO UNLAWFUL AND INVALID RESERVE ASSESSMENTS. Therefore, a “refund” is certainly in order and payable to 02 and 03 owners immediately. As an alternative, a request can be made to the bank to simply issue a credit to the accounts of 02 and 03 owners and a charge to 01 owner accounts.

•  On February 15^th, 2021, Justice N.D. Crooks ruled that the respective amendment to the Bylaws as proposed by the Board, DID NOT receive the necessary support, effectively deeming all previous assessments to be invalid. It is important to note, that contrary to the Board’s declaration that “refunds of reserve assessments cannot be made and within the Act there are no exceptions”, all owners of 01, 02 and 03 units, who paid the unlawful $3000 assessment due June 30, 2021 were offered a full refund of their $3,000 payment. It is interesting that the Board deemed a full refund of an unlawful assessment of $3000 to be just fine when 01 owners were unlawfully assessed, but then refuse a refund to 02 and 03 owners for their excessive contribution to an unlawful assessment.

• It is important to ensure that the negative impact of the previous unlawful assessments be corrected with adjustments to the invalid assessments. As residents were advised subsequent to the February 15, 2022 Court decision, the following corrections are necessary (considering contributions to these unlawful assessments as of March 31, 2022):

-amount payable by 01-226 unit owners $ 891.98

-amount payable by 01-228 unit owners    944.51

-amount refundable to 02 unit owners       815.01

-amount refundable to 03 unit owners       132.21

A further correcting adjustment is required for each month subsequent to March 31^st, 2022.

Any responsible resident owner will demand prompt, fair and equitable address of this matter.

Dennis Tofin Unit 603

May 31^st, 2021

SPADINA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION
730 Spadina Crescent East
SASKTOON, SK
S7K 4H7

ATTENTION: Mr. John Beckman President & Board of Directors
RE: BYLAW 3 AMENDMENT RESOLUTION

Dear Sirs:

I direct you to the following:

CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY, 2001 C-26.1 REG 2 reads: Scheme of apportionment 48(1) Subject to subsection (2) A corporation shall not amend its bylaws to include a scheme of apportionment unless written consent to that scheme has been obtained from at least 75% of the owners

It would appear that out of a total of 29 residential unit owners, 7 of them voted “no” to consenting to the proposed Bylaw amendment. Considering that only 74% of resident owners consented to the amendment, therefore not reaching the Board’s conditional threshold requirement of a 75% consenting vote of residents, before any consideration of a commercial vote whose participation would of course been totally inappropriate. As the threshold was not met, it was understood that the commercial vote would be a non consenting vote. 

Further, I direct that the Board review the Queen’s Bench Court decision by Justice R. Elson– Ehman v Albony Place Condominium Corporation, 2017 SKQB 82 BETWEEN DIANNE EHMAN AND SHARON WOOD and ALBONY PLACE CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION AND NICOR COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT INC. This decision clearly dictates that a Bylaw amendment requires the consent of 75% of the registered owners without regard to unit factor.

In view of the above, I believe the results of the May 28^th, 2021 consent results to be null and void. Please provide within seven days, written confirmation that the Board has agreed that the proposed Bylaw amendment is totally invalid and will be advising residents of the same.

Should I not receive this written confirmation within seven days, I will consider filing an application in the Court of Queen’s Bench seeking the Court’s invalidation of any such proposed amendment.

Yours truly,

Dennis M. Tofin
603-730 Spadina Crescent East
SASKATOON, SK
S7K 4H7

May 16^th, 2021

FELLOW RESIDENTS:

A primary concern of residents regarding the proposed Bylaw amendment, is why is an amendment even necessary given that the residential reserve fund will already have sufficient funds of $85,000 at June 30^th for redecorating. Insurance will be covering the majority cost of the party room. This would include painting of the party room, the office, kitchen and bedroom areas as well as a full replacement of the ceiling, walls, etc. Therefore, there is no need for the $3,000 per door special assessment for the party room due June 30^th.

With funding of the above therefore provided for, why is there a need for a Bylaw amendment at all?  Residents definitely are not in favor of a PERPETUAL ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION of $25,000 for redecorating that will not even take place until sometime after 2035. Residents obviously should vote NO on the ballot provided.

Regardless of whether you own a 01, 02 or 03 unit, there is NO reason to support a Bylaw amendment when there is no reason for resident contributions of any kind at this time.

Residents must be informed of the very serious financial status of our main reserve fund. The last budget presented at last years AGM forecasted only TWO items in the first 3 years of the forecast which is very unusual. Unfortunately, a list of known imminent and short term obligations was not disclosed to residents. As you can see in the attached schedule, completion of these obligations if conducted in the next year, would result in a substantial deficit in the reserve fund. Click on following link:

http://spadinanewscenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Reserve-Fund-Status-2021-05-15-1.xlsx

Unfortunately, residents were provided with only a fraction of the 2020 Reserve Fund Study. Why?

Brunsden advised in May of 2020 in a telephone communication that the “reserve fund study is in the Board’s hands as we speak”. Yet the Board advised the AGM that “the study was not received until September 28^th”. Who is correct? The evidence suggests Brunsden was correct in the timing of their submission.. Why did the Board sit on the Study for some four months? What changes to the Study did the Board request” and if Brunsden did make any of the requested changes, specifically, what changes were made? Brunsden must respond to this question as well.

The Board advised that Brunsden made numerous errors in the Study and that they found it necessary to prepare their own cash flow projections. Why did the Board not simply advise Brunsden of the “errors” and request a correction of the Study? This would have prevented a great unnecessary confusion among residents

On page 22 of the Study, it states “All exterior windows from the ground floor to the top floor, are owned by and the responsibility of the condominium corporation/association”.On the same page, it states “The windows in both the commercial and rersidential units are the responsibility of the specific unit owner. Thus, no funding if identified for them”. Why did the Board not request a correction of this in the Study? THE FACTS ARE: The registered plan of the building clearly states that the Corporation is responsible for the exterior maintenance of all windows in the building (maintenance refers primarily  to cleaning). Replacement of front windows is the responsibility of the Corporation.

On page 24 of the Study, it states “The condition of the concrete deck surface under the center 4^th floor balcony could not be inspected and verified as it is covered by indoor/outdoor carpet which was not removed to enable the concrete to be observed”. Brunsden was provided in October, 2019 with detailed information and documents including photographs of the “structural repairs” required. The Study states correctly, “the condominium corporation is responsible for all structural repairs only”.

The Study further states: “The condition of the concrete deck surface under the center 4^th floor balcony could not be inspected and verified as it is covered by indoor/outdoor carpet which was not removed to enable the concrete to be observed”. The need for required “structural repairs” can easily be determined and observed by simply walking over the balcony surface. Further, the owner of this unit, was available and prepared to assist at the time of Brunsden’s visit to the property but management made no attempt to ensure that the owner was contacted.

The Study further states: “The condition of the center 4^th floor residential concrete deck surface could not be ascertained. Funding has been provided to repair the concrete deck surface in five years, if required.” So if the condition of the deck surface could not be “ascertained” then why does the Study state “Funding has been provided to repair the concrete deck surface in five years, if required”. No resident would ever accept this “intentional” refusal of Board address to this deck structure issue on their condo preventing the owner from conducting their own surface covering replacement as all other owners are entitled to. The owner of 402 has made many requests over many years to the Board to address this issue only to receive constant rejection. The Board is clearly liable for this negligence and very disrespectful conduct. Without immediate written confirmation of structural replacement to be completed by the spring of 2021 provided to the owner, a statement of claim against “responsible” parties is promised by the unit owner.

Why has the Board failed to provide a responsible reserve fund budget by simply not recognizing or responsibly preparing for numerous short term and imminent expenditures, including chiller replacement, air compressor replacement, window replacement, center deck structural repair, probable Enercon replacement, the urgently required return of the humidifier removed for false reasons (a proven and very valuable tool to assist in preventing Covid transmission within the building especially in the elevators). Why did the Board fail to ensure that these items were reflected in the 2020 Reserve Fund Study when they were fully aware that these expenditures were very much imminent in the immediate future? These overlooked expenditures, totalaling some $150,000 are not recognized in the 2020 AGM Reserve Fund Budget. This all clearly leads to depletion of our projected Reserve Fund balance easily falling to well below $100,000 in 2021.

Unfortunately, this very serious misleading information all leads to yet further resident confusion and the need for CASH CALLS substantially above and beyond the $3000 already being demanded of residents. It is important to note, that there is no reason to support or defend residents who continue with their very irresponsible silence and are simply prepared to accept and succumb to the consequences of whatever misleading information they receive from the Board.

November 26, 2020

The Board has been reminded repeatedly of ongoing bedbug infestations. Effected residents have went through a very hellish and costly experience simply due to negligence on the part of the Board and management. The disrespect upon impacted residents and failure to act is shameful. The Board must be held accountable for this negligence and act immediately with an inspection and appropriate treatment of the entire building. Costs incurred by the impacted residents should be reimbursed to these owners immediately. This is only one of many issues that should have been addressed at a general meeting and if not, certainly at the AGM. The bugs are clearly moving through common areas reaching adjacent units (started in 1003, then moved to 903, 803, 702, 602, then 601).

The Board was reminded of their negligence on numerous occassions yet nothing has been done. They have clearly exposed themselves to liability issues given their refusal to act. Please review the attached letters to the Board. No response has been provided.

April 7th, 2020

SPADINA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION 730 Spadina Crescent East
Suite 603
SASKATOON, SK
S7K 4H7

ATTENTON: Mr. John Beckman:
Re: Bed Bug Infestations
I understand that there has been six or more cases of bed bug infestations in the building over the past year including one most recently.
As this is obviously not an isolated occurrence, the building should conduct immediately a thorough investigation of ALL UNITS
and common areas of the building and provide a copy of the inspection certificate to all unit owners.
Regards.
Dennis M. Tofin
603-730 Spadina Crescent East
SASKATOON, SK
S&K 4H7

Please click on the following report

Invoice review 2014-2015.xlsx

The Board at this year’s AGM once again clearly demonstrated a total lack of respect for resident questions and requests for information and clarification. Once again after many years the Chairman chose to avoid and not provide an opportunity for residents to present many of their concerns and questions.

1. There were far too many issues that required attention but could not be addressed at the AGM. Many residents advised prior to the meeting that they found the information package they received to be somewht convoluted and obsure. Residents including myself have repeatedly requested a general meeting to be held preferably prior to the AGM in order to ensure that they are sufficiently informed and prepared to commit themselves to any funding proposed by the Board. Any such meeting has been adamantly rejected by the Board and as a result, far too much information has been intentionally concealed and many questions left unanswered.
2. Mr. Beckman chose to reject resident requests for placement of motions on the Agenda. These motions were intended to provide clarification and address confusion issues among residents with the AGM package information package provided to them. By the way, an explanation for the well beyond reason “AGM costs” billed by the commercial owner and management is requested. Clearly it is time to contract with an independent property manager in order to prevent such excessive management fees.
3. Mr. Beckman continues to state that reserve fund expenditures including the costly landscaping project did not require approval of unit owners. This is in contravention of our Bylaws which Mr. Beckman fails to understand.
4. In the 2019 AGM minutes, it was suggested to leave monthly fees as they are with operating surplus to be transferred to reserve fund.  The common expense fund like the reserve fund should maintain a reasonable fund balance to deal with potential unexpected expenses.
5. In the 2019 AGM minutes, when asked why the chiller and pool floor repairs were not included in the Reserve Fund budget, Mr. Barnes advised that “there wasn’t enough money so why would we budget for it”. When there is “not enough money” then there is some budgeting work to do. Further there was a resolution to leave fees remain the same, providing no responsible preparation for substantial reserve fund expenditures that the Corporation was facing.
6. The Board has repeatedly advised in the last several years that the chiller and air compressor are due for replacement. Yet no mention is made of the chiller, pool floor and air compressor in the 2020-2021 reserve fund budget. Further, repair to the center 4^th floor deck, the humidifier, a provision for window replacement, etc. is absent in the current year budget as well. It is totally irresponsible to not even mention these items in the current budget. With the present $220,439 reserve fund balance, an immediate need for these expenditure items may arise at any time. This would result in a reserve fund balance of well below $100,000 which places the Corporation’s finances in their worst position in the entire history of the building. A most unreasonable comment was made by the Board that “certain items had not yet failed and therefore did not appear in the reserve fund budget”. This is obviously not a very responsible position to be taken by any Board.The Alternative Funding Plan as proposed at the AGM can easily accommodate the above expenditures and begin a responsible rebuild of the Reserve Fund. No cash calls are necessary.
7. Yet what does the Board do but issue a cash call due to a clearly insufficient funding plan. I was personally attacked and accused of a “nefarious purpose” in my submission of an alternative plan. The Board was fully determined to make this accusation but refused to explain what was nefarious about the plan that required no cash calls while their plan did. I resent any such “nefarious” allegation. The Alternative Plan clearly was able to rebuild the reserved fund to a reasonable level where the Board’s plan did not. The average reserve fund balance over the past 20 years has been about $200,000 which is what the current balance is at June 30, 2020 but with the real danger of this balance falling below $100,000 should the chiller and compressor fail at any time as there is no budget for these items. The Alternative Plan can accommodate these items and further rebuilds the Reserve Fund to a reasonable level going forward.It is very troubling that other than balcony bracket repair (which is total unnecessary on most floors), there are NO projected reserve fund expenditures for the next couple of years. Never in the history of the building have we had such a most questionable forecast. The Board admits it really doesn’t care as it will simply resort to irresponsible cash calls whenever they wish which is always the result of incompetence or naive and uninformed planning -Toronto Condo News.
8. At the 2019 AGM a reserve fund expenditure in the amount of $15,000 was approved for the vestibule. Yet it appears that in order to obtain additional funds, this project was delayed and projected to now be $30,000 at the 2020 AGM. The Board and management obviously cannot be relied upon for their inaccuracies in budgeting and failure to act on approved expenditures.
9. At the 2020 AGM, the Board avoided many questions relating to insurance claims and payments for substantial damages during the past two years.  A detailed report including related invoice and other supporting documents should be made available to residents.
10. Residents received no financial statements for the months January to June, 2020. When I finally obtained a copy of these following repeated requests, the January, February, April and June statements revealed 12 credit entries to expense accounts totaling $42,951.21. UNFORTUNATELY, no other residents were provided with these monthly financial statements. Further, NO RESERVE FUND REPORTS are included in these very limited monthly reports, depriving residents of their right to monthly reserve fund activity throughout the year.This concealment of financial information from residents is very troubling and is certainly not compliant with responsible financial reporting. The excuse of correcting errors in prior month expenses deserves much more explanation. It is very unfortunate that the Board and management have avoided most relevant resident questions and were unable to provide detail on these credits and any detail and clarity as to the debit side of these entries. Another unusual excuse for June credits was stated by the Board as necessary to correct commercial fees which makes little sense and certainly requires a detailed explanation. Whoever is responsible for these inappropriate accounting entries should be relieved of their involvement in accounting activities of the Corporation.
11. The Board avoided the very obvious need to provide residents with sufficient time to voice their concerns and seek answers to their questions. An appropriate question and answer General Meeting has been requested for this purpose on many occasions only to be rejected with no explanation.  
12. The Board’s position that an $100,000 caretaker was necessary is very misleading. A review of caretaker costs in Canada is available. In Saskatchewan, $34,837 is the average caretaker salary. Obviously, little effort was put into seeking a caretaker at a reasonable cost. The previous caretaker was relieved of most of his duties several years ago and the Board simply allowed contractors to perform his duties, resulting in a substantial increase to our repair and maintenance costs. The Board was foolish enough to have a party for the caretaker upon his departure at a cost of well over $1,000. No responsible Board member would ever approve of this expenditure and more importantly the very poor performance of the caretaker.
13. More than $500,000 in projected reserve fund expenditures in the 2015 reserve fund study were reallocated to after 2025 in the 2020 reserve fund study. Residents seeking reasons for this were attacked for even daring to ask such questions.
14. I have personally expressed my opinion, asked relevant questions and contributed information at many AGM’s. I believe it is very important to permit residents to speak especially when far too many residents remain silent and contribute little if anything to the meeting. I would suggest that residents or their representatives who prefer not to hear relevant comments and questions at these meetings, and have made no attempt to inform themselves with a reasonable understanding of the facts, are unable to make any meaningful contribution to the meeting. With their lack of any reasonable understanding of the facts, they should remain silent until they have informed themselves of the facts and are able to make a qualified contribution to the meeting.
15. Brunsden advised me directly in May that the Reserve Fund Study was in the hands of the Board at that time, yet the Board advised that they did not receive the study until September 28^th.  The meeting was then advised that a draft was received in July. The truth of the matter is the Board had the study from May until September 28^th. Unfortunately new owners did not have the opportunity to review the study when they purchased their units in August and were wrongfully misled and deprived of essential information about their intended purchase. The Board responded to this by simply advising the meeting that these new owners had access to the 2015 Reserve Fund Study to inform themselves. Yet, the meeting was then advised that the 2015 study was no longer relevant. If no longer relevant, why were new owners wrongfully misled and left on their own to rely on a study that the Board deemed to be no longer relevant? This is very troubling with potential legal consequences for the Corporation.
16. A resident at the AGM opined that prospective purchasers of condos in our building are deterred by our unusually high condo fees, a low reserve fund, and the irresponsible policy of unknown cash calls and certainly NOT the state of the lobby or meeting room. To spend some $200,000 on these common areas is simply an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. A recent listing for a 1200 square foot unit in a luxury condominium property in Saskatoon shows monthly fees to be $450 or 1/3 of a similar sized unit in our building. This lipstick will do little to remedy this major financial situation in our building. The best remedy to this serious problem is to implement a responsible FUNDING PLAN that immediately addresses this issue. It was incorrectly stated that I referred to the importance of the “appearance” of the building. I made no mention of “appearance” and only referred to the serious public perception of our property due to high fees and the absence of a responsible predictable funding plan.
17. The issue of in unit common area inspections was avoided by the Board. Tom McClocklin Sr. falsely stated and misled residents by stating that “inspections have been on going and every unit has been checked”. Obviously, Mr. McClocklin has no clue what is going on in the building Mr. McClocklin has admitted in the past that he has no mechanical knowledge so he is not qualified to make any such comment. I have not had any inspection (other than the annual sprinkler inspections) in my unit for some ten years. Regular inspection includes those items outlined in the building manual. As a result, I have experienced major problems with zone valves, leaking windows and plumbing issues that have resulted in damage to my unit.
18. Regarding the lobby projected to be completed at June 30, 2021 ($75,000) there will be $84,706 available at that time leaving a resident only reserve fund balance of $9,706 after the expenditure. Obviously, no cash call is necessary at this time. With the meeting room estimated to be completed sometime in the fall at a cost of $93,390, and amount of $83,684 will be required at that time. Therefore no cash call is necessary until the project is completed about this time next year.
19. Amount presently outstanding and payable by the commercial owner to the Corporation is  $12,240.65 plus amounts to be determined upon a further resident review of invoices to be conducted as soon as possible. Please see attached schedule.

Obviously Spadina Towers has made a very big mistake. Who suggested the $80,000 number along with a free residence and parking estimated to be another $20,000? Why do residents simply accept this irresponsible conduct of the Board where it is residents who pay the bulk of such careless and unnecessary cost increases? PRIMARY SASKATOON PROPERTY MANAGERS, Board members of comparable properties, realtors, insurance agents and many others find our building one to be avoided because of clearly biased management and financial practices, including our extreme condo fees relative to comparative market fees. It is clearly time to contract with AN INDEPENDENT PROPERTY MANAGER where there is no commercial owner bias.

Building Caretaker salary in Canada Find out what is the average Building Caretaker salaryBuilding caretaker: SalaryBased on 45 salariesYearMonthWeekHour$32,936/ YearThe average Building Caretaker salary in Canada is $32,936 per year or $16.89 per hour. Entry level positions start at $25,013 per year while most experienced workers make up to $45,827 per year.Median$32,936Low$25,013High$45,827Building caretaker salaries per regionAlberta$36,582Saskatchewan$34,837Ontario$33,530British Columbia$33,300ManitobaN/AShow moreRelated SalariesCaretaker$38,812Building Caretaker$32,936People also ask…How much would I earn after taxes?Active jobs with salaries

building caretaker

Immaculate Heart of Mary School | Corner Brook, NL, CASalary : $25,350 Work SettingSchool or educational institution establishmentSecurity and SafetyCriminal record checkJanitors, Caretakers and Building Superintendents Specific SkillsWork with minimal…

building caretaker

0894880 BC,LTD. | Abbotsford, BC, CASalary : $39,000 Caretakers and Building Superintendents Specific SkillsWash windows, interior walls and ceilingsMove heavy furniture, equipment and suppliesWork with minimal supervisionClean and disinfect…

building caretaker

458349 BC, LTD. | Abbotsford, BC, CASalary : $39,000 Caretakers and Building Superintendents Specific SkillsWash windows, interior walls and ceilingsMove heavy furniture, equipment and suppliesWork with minimal supervisionClean and disinfect…

Building Caretaker – Vancouver

Cleantech Service Group | Vancouver, BC, CASalary : $40,000 JOB DESCRIPTIONWe are currently looking for a BuildingCaretaker for our site in Vancouver. This will be a full time position, Monday to Friday. This position would be an excellent opportunity…

apartment building caretaker

Westwood Employment Link | Winnipeg, MB, CASalary : $30,960 Caretakers and Building Superintendents Specific SkillsWash windows, interior walls and ceilingsWork with minimal supervisionClean and disinfect bathrooms and fixturesWater and tend to plants…

September 1st, 2020

SPADINA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION

730 Spadina Crescent East

SASKATOON, SK

S7K 4H7

ATTENTION: Mr. John Beckman & Board of Directors

Dear Sirs:

Following the October 2019 Annual General Meeting, I again requested resident access to Corporation documents including invoices/source documents, and contracts. This request was BLATENTLY REFUSED with the Board stating that invoices and related source documents did not qualify as a component of “Books of Account”. The legal definition of “Books of Account” as affirmed by Canada Revenue Agency and others, specifies that invoices, purchase orders, and other related records, are an essential part of the “Books of Account” and are necessary when conducting a thorough review of the financial activity of the Corporation. Unfortunately, Auditors DO NOT CONDUCT A FULL REVIEW OF “SOURCE DOCUMENTS” thus leaving inappropriate or fraudulent activity concealed. Some Board members are obviously under extreme pressure from influence by particular Board members who are demanding such illicit concealment in order to avoid disclosure of their influence resulting in concealment of obvious fraudulent transactions.

Given the refusal of the Board to adopt the Reserve Fund Study submitted to them earlier this year, the Board is asked to provide their reasons for delaying approval of the Study. It is most appropriate that residents be provided with a presentation of the 2020 Reserve Fund Study by the author at a GENERAL MEETING in advance of the AGM, in order to ensure that residents are fully informed of the financial  impact upon them going forward, both short term and long term. Resident input will certainly impact and ensure responsible content and approval of a Reserve Fund budget at the AGM.

Mr. Beckman and the Board, are yet once again asked to provide access to documentation (invoices and source documents) that would provide transparency in response to the many serious expenditure questions of residents submitted to the Board over the past many years, from 2015-2020 in particular. Residents continue to ask; JUST WHY are these documents being so adamantly concealed by the Board?

This simple disclosure (a very common requirement in Corporations) would answer a lot of questions and finally bring to an end, the grave concerns regarding our finances.

Residents clearly expect and require full transparency on the part of the Board to provide responsible and appropriate address to all of the above issues at the coming 2020 Annual General Meeting.

Dennis M. Tofin

Unit #603

Residents were recently advised that our caretaker will be gone as of August 31^st. Residents have been advised on numerous occasions over the past two years that a new caretaker was being sought. It appears that no effort has been made during this period to find and ensure a replacement.

There is an opportunity to finally correct the many caretaker issues we have experienced in the past ten years. For many years, the caretaker has been overpaid while his duties have been drastically reduced. As a result, substantial contractor costs have been incurred to make up for this reduction in duties. An additional $20,000 would be a conservative estimate of these additional annual costs. With the caretakers cost for a number of years at $80,000 plus this $20,000, the annual caretaker costs have as a result have essentially been $100,000 plus. Obviously, there is an opportunity to save tens of thousands of dollars.

A resident review of invoices in 2015 revealed that the caretaker was spending time providing private services to the commercial units, often at the expense of the Corporation. For many years, caretaker services contracted by the Corporation were strictly for common area services and not for services provided within condominium units. This practice must resume immediately. The new caretakers duties should include inside common area and ground services only and should not be available to provide service to any individual unit. A separate service source for miscellaneous in unit services could be arranged and their contact information provided to all unit owners.

There are numerous contracting options available including:

1. Caretaker provides common area cleaning only.
2. As per #1 but providing the living quarters to the caretaker
3. As above, but the caretaker provides specific inspection and maintenance duties at prescribed hourly rate.

A contract must ensure that the duties of the caretaker are sufficiently described. Regular inspections and enforcement of building regulations (ie. parking) must be included as well.

It is suggested that a pre AGM meeting be held to cover not only the Reserve Fund Planning matter, but also to hear the input of unit owners regarding a caretaking contract. In the meantime, temporary cleaning services can easily be arranged.

On November 3^rd, 2019 shortly after the Annual General Meeting, an article was posted to Spadina News Center regarding the actual status of the Corporation’s finances and the rather urgent need for address of the Board including a responsible financial plan. Unit owners were further advised at that time that they would be provided with an update from Spadina News Center of the current status of this matter once the 2020 Reserve Fund Study was received. The Study was in fact submitted to the Board for its review in the spring of 2020 however the Board has now going into fall, continued its refusal to approve the Study and presentation of the Study to residents as offered by Brunsden the preparer of the Study. It is imperative that the Brunsden present the Study to a General Meeting of unit owners to ensure a qualified and professional review.

It would be prudent and in the best interest of all unit owners for the Board to arrange for distribution and presentation of the 2020 Study to unit owners well in advance of the 2020 AGM so that everyone has the opportunity to become familiar with the status and extent of current and future capital expenditures that will be affecting their personal finances. Such a meeting would provide an opportunity for the Board to be in a position to prepare and present for approval at the AGM a three to five year funding plan for Reserve Fund expenditures that recognizes the current Reserve Fund Study and the input of unit owners.

During the current 2020 fiscal year, management and the Board of the Spadina Condominium Corporation has prevented the posting of an information bulletin board to be displayed in the residential lobby. The previous bulletin board was suddenly removed early in the year. Objections to the removal of the bulletin board have been expressed over the past year with no Board response provided. Management did respond, but simply advised that they had no idea why the bulletin board was removed and expressed no interest in its replacement. This of course speaks well of the position of both management and the Board.

It appears that residential Board members have again succumbed to the illegitimate instructions to management to disallow the democratic and convenient means of a simple bulletin board communication to our resident community of building activities.

As a result of the continued removal from the previous bulletin board, of an information advisory of NEWS POST’s from http://spadinanewscenter.com/, a post was made (using tape) next to the mail boxes. This posting was repeatedly removed by someone for several days until such time as it was no longer posted. The message posted and removed simply advised website access information.

www.spadinanewscenter.com.

July 28^th, 2020

SPADINA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION

C/O Mr. John Beckman

702-730 Spadina Crescent East

SASKATOON, SK

S7K 4H7

ATTENTION: Board of Directors

Dear Sirs:

Several requests have now been made to management to provide unit owners with a copy of the Reserve Fund Study Report which was completed earlier this year. Management continues to advise that the Corporation has in fact NOT received the Reserve Fund Study. It is now late July, so why has the study not been received or provided to residents? I would suggest that the study be provided to all unit owners immediately. The grave concern of residents over the Corporation’s finances is a very serious matter and appropriate address by the Board to these concerns should be provided with immediate distribution of the study to them along with a qualified presentation of the study from the author prior to the AGM. The Board has precariously prevented a qualified presentation of the Reserve Fund Study for many years. Qualified representation of the report to all unit owners can no longer be refused by the Board.

A resident review of invoices for the fiscal year 2015, revealed more than $30,000 in ILLEGITIMATE expenditures by the Corporation.  Many requests have since been made of the Board to permit a further resident review of both the illegitimate expenditures discovered in 2015 and as well, a full resident review of invoices and all related source documents for following years through to the recent 2020 June 30^th year end period. Appropriate address of the 2015 resident review ONLY, would result in an approximate $500 plus refund to each residential unit owner. A responsible review of 2016 through 2020 may very well reveal similar additional refunds to residents. I doubt if any resident would forgive such a substantial refund.

There are many important issues of concern including the above, which very much require address at a general meeting prior to the AGM. Such a meeting would enable a normal AGM where many of the outstanding issues will have already been addressed at the preliminary meeting. For many years, the AGM opportunities for resident expression of issues and importance to them are very much restricted and most often outrightly refused of any response or respect by the Board.

I would appreciate your response to the above.

Thankyou.

Dennis Tofin

603-730 Spadina Crescent East

SASKATOON, SK

S7K 4H7

306.242.0409

WHAT CAN SPADINA TOWERS RESIDENTS DO? By now you have all received instructions from many sources. Please comply with strict adherance to all of these recommended protocols!

Spadina Towers residents have been reminded before on numerous occassions of their exposure to health and respiratiory issues due to a lack of humidification in our building. Humidity levels within residential units have dropped into extremely dangerous levels (less than10% vs. healthy levels of 50%) during the winter months in particular. This has directly contributed to an uneccessary increase in resident illness and their need for direct medical treatment and medications. There is no need for residents to be enslaved to a personal humidifier which requires constant attention when CENTRALIZED HUMIDIFICTION dramatically relieves residents of this need and at a lower cost.

Spadina Towers has in the past been recognized as an “upscale or luxury” condominium property because of its many features including “central humidification”. Many residents considered this feature when they purchased their condominium. Our commercial owners may not care if such residential features are maintained, but residents CERTAINLY SHOULD and THEY SHOULD STAND UP AND STAND FOR ALL FEATURES AND RIGHTS TO THE CONDO THEY HAVE PURCHASED.

When our central humidification was removed in 2010, Tom McClockin Sr. advised (on record) at the AGM that “the engineer advised him that that the humidifier was not necessary” and should be removed. When the engineer attending the meeting was asked to respond as to why humidification was removed, he advised, again on record that he was instructed to remove this service BECAUSE IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE and that he was instructed to remove the existing humidification system in order to save money. In turn, the Corporation spent a million dollars on a new heating system but at the same time refused to pay $29,000 quoted by the engineer for upgrading central humidification. Where was the voice of our residential Board members? This most obivous illicit conduct on the part of the commercial owner this matter is blatently irresponsible and in total disregard for the respect, health and welfare of our residents. Such conduct has obviously disqualified the commercial owner from any immediate and future action required action necessary to address of this most serious matter. Why have RESIDENT BOARD MEMBERS REMAINED SILENT!

Unfortunately, since 2010, many of our residents have knowingly or unknowingly experienced respiratory issues relating to the lack of humidification in our building. Visiting air quality professionals have confirmed the same. Many concerns and requests of the Board to address this matter have most unfortunately received no response! If there was ever a time for responsible property management and a condominium Board of Directors to act responsibly on behalf of their residents, that time is now!

Residents must be proactive on this most critical issue and act immediately! They must demand immediate installation of central humidification, an essential component that exisited as an original service and mechanical component of the building that is clearly inscribed within the registered plan of the building as a legal component of every owners property.

Where do you go for help? Don’t expect any help from your residential board members are they are clearly under the direction of the commercial Board members. For those residents who still do not understand how their interests are represented in this building, should a resident Board member not support the postion of the commercial owner, they WILL SIMPLY NOT BE RE ELECTED

Unfortunately, it seems that even an international respiratory related pandemic has not attracted the attention of the Board and its need to address the problematic issues that impact the residents and tenants of Spadina Towers.

Residents Must Speak Up!

The Board is requested to seek immediately tenders (minimum of 3) without the participation of Mr. McClocklin, his associated management company, and other commercial Board members, for installation and replacement of an appropriate humidification system at Spadina Towers and present to unit owners at a General Meeting, the opening of these tenders.

Please review the following report recently issued by those who are qualified to understand the relevance and severity of this issue at Spadina Towers.

Humidity helps in the fight against COVID-19, virologists report. Washington, D.C., March 13, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — What can the public do to defend against the COVID-19 coronavirus?  One simple answer is to ramp up humidification at home and in the workplace, if humidity levels are low. Hospitals treating cases of viral respiratory infection may be advised to do the same.

Why has the novel coronavirus COVID-19 had only a minimal impact in tropical countries while temperate zone countries such as China, Korea, Italy, Iran and the United States have suffered outbreaks? Humidity, and especially indoor humidity, seems to hold the key.

In 2019, a research team at Yale University Medical School published a groundbreaking study (Kudo et al., National Academy of Sciences, 2019) which showed how low ambient humidity hurts the ability of the immune system to fight respiratory viral infection in animal hosts. As Yale immunologist Akiko Iwasaki repeatedly has tweeted, winter months require indoor heating, which leads to low indoor humidity, which in turn leads to reduced mucociliary clearance and innate antiviral immunity, resulting in more respiratory virus in the lungs and increased mortality.

Dr. Nancy Gough of Johns Hopkins University explained the Yale study thus (Medium, March 1, 2020): “When the temperature drops, the heat comes on. This reduces the amount of humidity in the air. It turns out this isn’t just uncomfortable; it also impairs the innate immune system in the respiratory tract.”

What do all the places with severe community COVID-19 outbreaks have in common? As a  group of U.S. and Iranian researchers (Sajadi et al. (2020)) concluded in a new study posted for review on March 9, 2020, “To date, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has established significant community spread in cities and regions only along a narrow east west distribution roughly along the 30-50 N” corridor at consistently similar weather patterns”. In each of the locations of significant community spread identified by the researchers, indoor humidity ranged from about 20% to 30% in the weeks prior to outbreak, which is fairly dry. “Because of geographical proximity and significant travel connections, epidemiological modeling of the epicenter predicted that regions in Southeast Asia, and specifically Bangkok would follow Wuhan, and China in the epidemic.” Instead, the researchers noted, “COVID-19 failed to spread significantly to countries immediately south of China.”

Dr. Gough further explained the importance of humidity, “The epithelial cells have small cellular protrusions called cilia that move the mucus to promote clearance of pathogens and particles that enter the respiratory system. Analysis of the mucus in the trachea showed that infection in low humidity resulted in the inability to of the cilia on the epithelial cells to move it. The low humidity made the mucus too thick.”

What can you do when low humidity is unavoidable? Explained Dr. Iwasaki, “A mask will certainly keep your nose and mouth warmer and more humidified. I always wear a mask on international flights for this reason, where 10% relative humidity and closed environment makes for a perfect transmission incubator.”

What should be the target humidity? The Yale team found that 50% ambient humidity at room temperature led to dramatically increased survival in their animal subjects. What if a humidifier is not available? A large pot of water carefully kept at a low boil can humidify dry winter air to healthy levels.

This new research suggests that warmer, more humid weather will soon bring relief to countries now affected by COVID-19. Until then, indoor humidification and the use of facemasks may save many lives and ultimately help the world turn the corner in the fight against this epidemic.

Key Citations:

1. Kudo et al. (2019) Low ambient humidity impairs barrier function and innate resistance against influenza infection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2019
2. Gough, March 1, 2020. Fighting the Flu with Humidity: Researchers discover immune system benefits of humidity https://medium.com/@ngough_bioserendipity/fight Fighting the Flu with Humidity Researchers discover immune system benefits of humiditying-the-flu-with-humidity-28d4ccb42bd7
3. Sajadi et al. (2020) Temperature and Latitude Analysis to Predict Potential Spread and Seasonality for COVID-19https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3550308

Further reading:

1. Makinen et al. (2009) Cold temperature and low humidity are associated with increased occurrence of respiratory tract infections. Respiratory Medicine, Volume 103, Issue 3, March 2009, Pages 456-462
2. Salah et al. (1988) Nasal mucociliary transport in healthy subjects is slower when breathing dry air. Eur Respir J. 1988 Oct;1(9):852-5.
3. Shaman et al. (2009) Absolute humidity modulates influenza survival, transmission, and seasonality. PNAS March 3, 2009 106 (9) 3243-3248
4. Lowen et al. (2007) Influenza virus transmission is dependent on relative humidity and temperature. PLoS Pathog 3(10): 1470–1476.
5. Yang et al. (2011) Dynamics of airborne influenza A viruses indoors and dependence on humidity. PloS One 6(6): e21481.

Dan Hess
Dan Hess Research
Phone: (301) 704-6859
E-Mail: danhess00@yahoo.com

Reserve Fund Analysis 2019-10-14.xlsx

It is most unfortunate that at our recent AGM, resident questions received either total rejection or no reasonable response.

Two major and fundamental issues of the AGM were intentionally avoided by the Board and unfortunately residents as well who chose to remain silent as to the following:

1. Intentional and unlawful concealment of commercial owner use of corporation funds to pay for personal improvements and operating expenses within their condominium. A resident review of invoices for only one fiscal year, revealed well over $25,000 in illicit use of corporate funds for the personal use of the commercial owner at the expense of residents. Following this review, the Board has continued to adamantly reject any further resident review of financial records and refuses to comment of on this $25,000 plus in illicit expenditures as well as thousands more in inappropriate spending. The evidence is very clear.Residents can see this evidence for themselves via a further resident review of the financial records of the Corporation. Do residents really wish to turn a blind eye and continue to support the intentional concealment of this very serious and illicit conduct?

With many thousands of dollars in illicit expenditures revealed and accompanied by clear source document evidence in a review of just one fiscal year, how much more might be revealed in an open and transparent review of prior and subsequent fiscal periods since 2015?

• 2. Board rejection of our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act requiring unit owner approval of Reserve Fund expenditures. More the $2 million dollars of reserve fund expenditures have proceeded without the required unit owner resolution approving these expenditures or any  responsible funding plan.

As a result, with no such funding plan in place reflecting responsible preparedness for coming  Reserve Fund expenditures, residents face very troubling news as revealed in the attached documents. The coming Reserve Fund Study due in March, will confirm a very serious Reserve Fund deficit as a result of fund management neglect. Based upon current data illustrated in the attached Reserve Fund Analysis, ADDITIONAL residential fee contributions of $300 to $400 per month over the next four years will be necessary to fund this projected deficit and rebuild the Reserve Fund. Why was this not disclosed by the Board at the recent AGM? Not very good news for those who care about the resale value of their condo.

No responsibly minded resident should accept any further neglect of these very troubling issues and no professionally qualified auditor representing resident interests should either. Financially troubled condo corporations usually get into these situations as a result the neglect of responsible planning of both expenditures and funding which has been clearly demonstrated here.

Should residents continue to choose silence as their response to the above, it will be to their own detriment. Please review the attached information which will provide you with some interesting facts which should help in understanding this serious situation.

Dennis Tofin #603

Proper planning will ensure that money is always available to meet the maintenance challenges that every single building inevitably faces. Responsible maintenance and prefunding of the Reserve Fund is absolutely essential to condominium owners.

Assessments resulting from Reserve Fund shortfalls are always the result of incompetence or naive and uninformed planning. Toronto Condo News & Resource Guide

Unfortunately, such assessments are standard practice at Spadina Condominium Corporation.

Condominium Corporations follow fund accounting to segregate the operating fund and reserve funds. The Reserve Fund is a restricted fund for capital replacement spending. Condominium Corporations adopt the restricted fund method to report the financial statement elements by fund in such a way that the organization reports the operating fund and the capital replacement fund. All capital expenditures must be recognized as such to ensure appropriate supporting resolutions.

Residents must be informed of the serious state of the Corporation’s Reserve Fund and the most troubling absence of any responsible funding plan. Please review the attached Reserve Fund Analysis which clearly illustrates the severity of the issue. Given current contribution levels, the reserve fund will be pretty much depleted over the next year. Why has no responsible funding plan been presented?

With no changes to current contributions, we will be facing a total projected reserve fund deficit of approximately ($471,000) by the end of 2023. Unfortunately, the Board has neglected to provide a responsible funding plan and residents are about to pay dearly for this neglect.

 In order to avoid this projected deficit and ensure a responsible rebuilding of the reserve fund balance to a reasonable level of some $300,000 within four years, a responsible 48 month funding plan must be implemented immediately with ADDITIONAL reserve fund contributions of approximately $770,000 over the next four years. The coming updated Reserve Fund Study may require even more. That translates to ADDITIONAL reserve fund contributions per residential unit of several hundred dollars per month per unit over the next four years. Unfortunately, these estimated fees are necessary to make up for neglect of the reserve fund for a number of years. Such irresponsible neglect must no longer be covered up with the continued use of surprise cash calls versus a responsible funding plan. 

To help mitigate the serious impact of this issue upon residents, drastic measures must be taken immediately including cost cutting in operating expenses such as caretaking and other excessive operating expenses that could easily result in annual savings of $25-50,000. Who else pays a caretaker $80,000 a year ($60 K plus housing & benefits) and then hires contractors to conduct his duties? Substantial reductions to the budget for proposed but very excessive residential common area “improvements” ($65,000) would certainly help as well.  These “improvements” should at the present time be limited to correcting the last “improvement” by replacing the existing hallway carpets which are an embarrassment to any resident owner who respects their property. Tenders and multi quotation requirements should also be implemented immediately for all reserve fund expenditures of $10,000 plus and all operating expenditures of $5000 or more in order to address excessive spending.

A General Meeting to advise residents of the facts of this very serious situation should take place ASAP and include presentation of a responsible funding plan. If nothing is done, you can be assured that a qualified assessment through our updated reserve fund study due in March of 2020, will confirm the serious lack of preparedness for what is coming. Its presentation will reveal this very serious situation at Spadina Towers and suggest corrective and responsible funding measures.

Reserve Fund – It is important to note that all proposed capital repair or capital replacement (reserve fund) expenditures be included in the Reserve Fund budget with both the expenditure and its means of funding confirmed with resolution approvals by UNIT OWNERS, NOT BY THE BOARD. More than $2 million of reserve fund expenditures have been unlawfully approved by the Board without unit owner approval. The Board refused to respond to this statement and related questions at the AGM.­­

Sometimes, it’s not the plan that is at fault. I can think of a number of examples where the reserve fund plan recommended a reasonable contribution, but for some reason the condominium board decided to set it lower. If a short term perspective is taken, this may seem to make sense – lower contributions helps property values and sales. If a long term perspective is taken, this is pretty irresponsible. Someone is going to pay for it eventually, and it won’t be pretty. It may also require some effort to educate the condominium board on the pitfalls of short-term thinking.In essence, the common problems noted above can be easily avoided by a qualified person that puts in the necessary work, and a condominium board that takes a long term perspective. The sooner you ensure the contributions are sufficient, the less painful it will be. If you don’t, it’s gonna hurt. Source reservefundguide.ca

 In conclusion, as a result of the Boards neglect of a responsible reserve funding program, unit owner property values have been severely impacted given the unfortunate marketplace perception of constant and irresponsible cash calls to cover up this neglect. The Board refuses to respond to resident questions and concerns. RESIDENTS SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH BOARD REFUSAL OF RESIDENT DEMANDS FOR TRANSPARENCY AND BOARD ADHERANCE TO THE LAW THAT REQUIRES UNIT OWNER APPROVAL BY APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION OF ALL RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES.

The only means of reestablishing respect for condo values at Spadina Towers is to ensure adoption of a responsible funding plan implemented by the Corporation that will not subject an owner or purchaser to unknown and surprise cash calls. It is hard to imagine any resident who would not be supportive of such a responsible funding plan and Board adherence to our Bylaws and the Act. Should the Board refuse to implement an immediate and responsible funding program to address the imminent shortfall in the funding of near term reserve fund obligations, residents will be subject to special assessments resulting from irresponsible Reserve Fund shortfalls that are as previously quoted, always the result of incompetence or naive and uninformed planning.

Dennis M. Tofin #603

1. The Board rejected a request to correct false and misleading minutes of the 2018 AGM.

• The Board refused to respond to a request for some examples and costs of major items within repair and maintenance expense.

• The Board and the owner of the management company refused to provide clarification and their definition of “capital expenditures vs. repair and maintenance” and further refused to explain why Spadina Towers refuses to seek unit owner approval of reserve fund expenditures as is required by law.

• The Board refused to respond to questions of illegitimate expenditures, unnecessary spending, unapproved and illicit expenditures of more than $2 Million dollars, maintenance neglect, intentional concealment of financial records, absence of responsible employee supervision, conflict of interest issues within management, the commercial owners and the Board of Directors, explanation of surprise cash calls vs. a responsible funding plan, etc. The Board has been provided with substantial evidence of all of the above, yet rejects any request made for their response.

• The Board rejected a request for responsible application of Bylaws including the following:

b) The amount required for the reserve funds shall be determined by the ordinary vote of the unit owners at the annual general meeting. NO SUCH DETERMINATION BY UNIT OWNERS WAS PERMITTED. The Board neglected inclusion of approximately $700,000 in projected reserve fund expenditures including items as determined by themselves and items required as per the last Reserve Fund Study which the Board refused to have presented to residents.

Further, the Board has adamantly refused to provide a copy of the legally required resolutions of unit owners approving more than $2 Million dollars in reserve fund expenditures. Why this refusal and concealment of this fact? The Board rejected the Bylaws and the Act and simply proceeded with these major expenditures without unit owner resolutions. Such resolutions very simply, have never been permitted and do not exist.

• Questions regarding numerous operating and reserve expenditures were attempted but rejected by the Board as “complaints which they were not prepared to hear”.

• Questions regarding the Board’s failure to disclose material facts and concealment of commercial use of corporate funds ($25,000 plus) for their own private expenses and renovations were rejected. This amount included entrance renovations in commercial condo unit one that are the commercial owners responsibility. A professional opinion was sought and confirmed the same. Yet the Board bowed to commercial objection and apparently approved the expenditure, again with no approval of unit owners. Many other illicit uses of Corporate funds were also revealed in a resident review of invoices, but requests for any further reviews were adamantly rejected by the Board.  

                   Fraudulent Concealment:  the intentional failure to disclose a material fact and especially the existence of a cause of action by one under a duty to make such a disclosure to another who acts or fails to act in reliance and suffers a loss.  Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

The Board rejected requests for discussion of the landscaping and signage expenditures. The Board has always disregarded the majority vote of unit owners supporting signage for Spadina Towers as per the following:

                      BUILDING SIGN At the 2013 AGM, 13 of 21unit owners attending the meeting voted in favor of a sign to be placed in front of the building so as to provide identity to the building. This was a vote by hand and therefore the majority vote was clearly in favor of the sign. This was acknowledged and confirmed in a recording of the meeting. The Board at the 2014 AGM, given the pressure of the commercial owner not to respect the 2013 vote of approval, suggested that the matter would be “left with the Board”. This is of course, a matter requiring the input of the residents and their voice and approval was heard at the 2013 AGM. This sign, which should be a sizeable lighted sign, should be centered on the front lawn. The building commonly known as SPADINA TOWERS since its inception, has long needed this identification. A proposal of a sign design should be submitted to unit owners as soon as possible for their approval and to ensure that the sign is installed during this spring/summer season. THE BOARD SIMPLY BOWED TO THE OBJECTION OF THE COMMERCIAL OWNER WHO CLAIMED THAT ANY FRONT SIGNAGE WAS TO BE COMMERCIAL ONLY AND REJECTED THE VOTE!

                             LANDSCAPING Spadina Board of Directors Face Liability Issues for proceeding with  landscaping without a Special Resolution

Boily upholds condo owners rights The case of Boily v. Carleton Condominium Corporation 145, 2014 ONCA 574 (CanLII) involves a disagreement between the directors of a condominium corporation and the condominium residents. As a result of repair work done to a parking garage, the landscaping around the condominium was damaged. The directors proposed to make changes to the landscaping upon repairs, but the residents wished to have the work restored to the original design.The Condominium Act, 1998 sets out the requirements of the board of directors to acquire a majority rule to make any “substantial changes” to common areas. Following a ruling of a motion judge that the alterations constituted substantial change, and a meeting in which the new landscaping plan failed to get the required assent of 66 per cent, the directors hired a company to start on the landscaping work regardless.

After a second appearance in court – where the directors were again ordered to restore the original landscaping design, were held in contempt of the previous court order, and received personal financial sanctions – the work continued to progress with substantial deviations from the original design. On appeal, the court upheld that the directors were in contempt of court for continuing with the changes to the landscape

What can a person learn from this case? When living in a condominium, it is vital to understand the rules in place that guide the operation and day-to-day life in the building. What is a resident allowed to do, what decisions can the board of directors make, and what control does a resident have over decisions being made? In this case, it was only thanks to the understanding of the residents that they knew changes to the landscaping required their approval. Boily upholds condo owners rights.

The exact same situation has occurred at Spadina Towers with the exception that our resident owners were not permitted to vote on the matter at all. Yet, residents choose to remain silent, subjecting themselves to yet further and continuing demands for their money. Who will pay for the liability of this corruption and illegal Board conduct considering not only the above, but as well, the many other contraventions of our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act as they relate to this and many other expenditures?

Given the Board’s refusal to discuss or respond to the many requests regarding many issues including those noted above, it may unfortunately require a review of the Court to address these matters.

Dennis M. Tofin #603

Preventing mismanaged finances on condo boards

Tuesday, September 24, 2019By David Taub

With more people than ever living in condominiums, mismanaged condo boards are becoming ever more prevalent. Is this a symbiotic relationship?

Whether by corruption or incompetence, condo boards that mismanage their multi-million dollar budgets and reserve funds are a recurring problem. Legislation has now been enacted in an effort to rectify some of the problems which, at their core, were permitted by a failure to properly regulate the management and operation of condominium corporations’ board of directors.

The Condominium Act stipulates that the role of the board of directors is to manage the affairs of the condo corporation. In practice, most condo boards delegate the day-to-day management to an independent property manager and focus instead on the governance of the corporation. As a result, boards typically oversee the management process, approve major projects and expenditures, and ensure that the collective and individual interests of the unit owners are being addressed.

In recent years, the industry has seen a lack of transparency regarding the appointment and operations of condo boards, giving rise to financial issues. Money has been stolen by dishonest boards and has been spent recklessly by inept boards. In some of these cases, the directors responsible did not even own or live in one of the condominium’s units.

Corrupt, incompetent, or uncooperative boards.

There have been highly publicized situations where directors have diverted funds from the condo budget to themselves, or received kickbacks where the condo corporation entered into contracts with its various service providers. One such scheme concerned a small group of people who took control of multiple condo boards in Greater Toronto and were accused of orchestrating the theft of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the condos’ operating budgets.

In a separate incident, the unit owners of condo buildings in Thornhill were subjected to a special assessment of $1 million to cover shortfalls in the condo’s budget and reserve fund. The owners said that they had no idea how or where the board is spending their money.

There have also been instances where condo budgets have been depleted as a result of the irresponsible spending of incompetent condo boards. Sitting on a condo board is usually a volunteer job, with the only requirements under the Condominium Act being that the individuals must be over the age of 17, not bankrupt, and mentally competent.

As a result of these minimum qualifications, condo board directors often lack the appropriate knowledge, training, and financial experience to manage the corporation properly.

Amendments to the condominium act

Allegations of corruption and mismanagement can only be resolved by either a police investigation or a lawsuit, both of which are reactive solutions.

In order to proactively address these issues, amendments to the Condominium Act came into effect on November 2017 and January 2018. The amendments were geared towards encouraging increased communication between condo boards and unit owners and enforcing training and disclosure requirements for directors. Four improvements created by the legislative amendments are as follows:

1. One category of amendments is designed to educate both the unit owners and the directors in relation to the role and responsibilities of the condo board. Condo board directors now must undergo mandatory training to assist them in understanding their obligations and to provide them with tools for effective governance. In addition, the Province of Ontario published a condo guide to explain to unit owners how condominiums are governed. These changes help directors become more aware of their duties and increase owners’ awareness of their rights. In turn, this should create
more responsible boards.

2. There are also rules in place to enhance communication between the condo board and the unit owners, and to increase unit owners’ access to condo corporations’ records. Condo boards now must issue information certificates containing information about the condo corporation’s finances, reserve fund, legal proceedings, and other matters. Directors now must make disclosures including whether they own a unit in the building, have a material interest in a contract, own a company that is a supplier to the condo (conflict of interest), or have been convicted of an offense under the Condominium Act. These changes will allow unit owners to monitor the board’s activities and the directors’ motives for sitting on the board. It should also become more difficult for non-owners to sit on the board, which is a desirable result.

3. Other amendments are directed at increasing the financial transparency of the board. These amendments include requirements for the board to pass a by-law in order to borrow money, to prepare an annual budget, and to seek a written opinion from a reserve fund study provider where the amount of money in the corporation’s reserve fund falls below a prescribed level. These changes will allow unit owners to know what the board is actually doing with their money.

4. An online “Condo Authority Tribunal” has been established to settle and decide record-related condominium disputes in a more timely and cost-effective manner. Any condo owner can file a case online for a $25 filing fee. To date, there have been 37 decisions released by the Tribunal, the majority of which have granted record requests from unit owners.

Under the old regime, a unit owner’s only recourse would have been a lawsuit. Lawsuits are slow and expensive. The Tribunal is helping to increase the access of unit owners to information about their condo board’s activities without the expense and delay of a lawsuit.

These amendments are all positive because they increase the overall transparency of condo boards in order to hold them more accountable for their actions, and to expose board members who are abusing or misusing their power. Additionally, they educate directors and unit owners about their roles and responsibilities, which should create more competent boards.

David Taub is a litigator with Toronto business law firm Robins Appleby LLP. This article originally appeared in CondoBusiness Magazine August 2019.

June 27^th, 2019                                     WHY DOES THE BOARD                                                                           REFUSE TO RESPOND?                                                                            WHY NOT ASK THEM?

SPADINA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION

730 Spadina Crescent East

SASKATOON, SK

S7K 4H7

Attention: Board of Directors

Dear Sirs:

Again in 2019, the Board has refused to respond to many questions and inquiries of residents regarding various issues, financial in particular. Residents are fully entitled to a reasonable response to these questions. I am hereby requesting such reasonable response from the Board to these questions which include the following:

1. The notes to the financial statement presented at the 2018 AGM stated that “during the year ended June 30, 2016 the organization made a motion for a special assessment of $950,000 to be placed into the Reserve”. Why does the Board continue its refusal to provide a copy of this resolution? Why is the word organization used rather than Corporation? 

2. Why does the Board refuse to provide a copy of the unit owners resolution approving the major landscaping and signage CAPTIAL expenditures or its means of funding as is required by our Bylaws? Why were residents not consulted and not provided with an opportunity to vote on this capital expenditure? 

3. Why has the Board always and continues to adamantly refuse to provide a copy of legally required resolutions approving reserve fund expenditures for the elevators $300,000 plus, parkade surface replacement $750,000 plus, and even the boiler expenditure of $1,000,000 which was rejected by some 80% of residents? 

4. Why has the Board refused to provide in addition to a monthly operating statement, a monthly reserve fund statement and balance sheet where residents can at least see where and when the substantial and UNAPPROVED reserve fund expenditures are being made using resident funds? 

5. The Board has been advised of the last resident review of 2015 invoices which revealed numerous and most shocking findings. These include amounts owing by the commercial owner to the Corporation in the amount of $11,625.85 which they refuse to pay. This amount includes costs of their renovations paid by the Corporation and the commercial share of common expenses that they refuse to pay. Why does the Board not insist upon immediate payment of $11,625.85 by the commercial owner?

6. During this same resident review, a further $13,000 in illicit and illegitimate expenses were paid by the Corporation and described previously. Why has the Board refused to provide any reasonable response as to why these expenses were paid by the Corporation? 

7. Just prior to this resident review, the Board was presented with an invoice from the commercial owner for the cost of renovating the entrance to their condo unit #1. The Board has refused to respond to my request of confirmation as to who in fact paid for this. Why does the Board continue its refusal to respond to this or any other expenditure which is questioned by resident unit owners? With some $35,000 to $40,000 of expenditures at question in just this one resident review, how much more illicit and illegitimate spending of resident money has taken place since? Why have resident Board members simply acted like silent lambs? 

8. At the 2018 AGM, residents requested that a further informational meeting was required relating to the proposed “permanent” roof anchor expenditure of over $100,000. Such an expenditure is capital in nature and requires a special resolution where a private polled vote ensures a confidential vote of unit owners. With no call for the requested general and informational meeting for the next six months, why did the Board suddenly call for a most inappropriate vote on the matter, refuse to consult with residents and conduct a voting procedure permitting no resident an opportunity to speak to the motion or request a private polled vote? 

Spadina Towers is in a very questionable financial position. Illegitimate and illicit us of reserve funds has resulted in unnecessary cash calls for a number of years. The price of units in the property has been severely impacted to the downside as a result. Who will buy a unit in this building where the Board at their own will, repeatedly spends resident funds without resident consultation and legally required approval and yet further, continue to demand ongoing cash calls?  I and other residents are fully entitled to a prompt and meaningful response from the Board to each of the above questions. Further, a resident review of invoices (2016-2019) must take place prior to preparation of the 2018-2019 year end audited report so that residents can be assured of a fully accurate and transparent report. Deception and intentional concealment is as you know a very serious matter. I am requesting that the Board advise me immediately as to when a review of all invoices and relevant financial records can take place by those residents who wish to participate in the review.

Yours truly,

Dennis Tofin

Again at the 2018 AGM, the Board refused to respond to many questions and inquiries of residents regarding various issues, financial in particular. Monthly income statements are provided but why are balance sheets and Reserve Fund statements being concealed?  Unit owners have overpaid far more than $1,000,000 for unapproved reserve fund expenditures in recent years plus thousands of dollars in unneccessary operating expenses. This list is long, yet the Board refuses to disclose these concealed documents. A few of the questions the Board refuses to respond to include the following:

1. The notes to the financial statement presented at the 2018 AGM stated that “during the year ended June 30, 2016 the organization made a motion for a special assessment of $950,000 to be placed into the Reserve”. Why does the Board continue its refusal to provide a copy of the resulting resolution? Why was the word organization used rather than Corporation?

 2. Why does the Board refuse to provide a copy of the unit owners resolution approving the recent major landscaping and signage CAPITAL expenditures or approval of the means of funding as is required by our Bylaws? Why were residents not consulted?

3.  Why has the Board always and continues to adamantly refuse to provide a copy of legally required resolutions approving reserve fund expenditures for the elevators $325,000 plus, parkade surface replacement $750,000 plus, and even the boiler expenditure of $1,000,000 which failed to receive the required support as per our Bylaws and which was rejected by some 80% of residents?

4  Why has the Board refused to provide in addition to a monthly operating statement, a monthly balance sheet and reserve fund statement where residents can at least see where and when the substantial and UNAPPROVED reserve fund expenditures are being made with resident funds?

5. The 2018 AGM was advised of the last resident review of 2015 invoices which revealed numerous most shocking findings. These include amounts owing by the commercial owner to the Corporation in the amount of $11,625.85 which they refuse to pay. This amount includes costs of their own renovations paid for by the Corporation that they refuse to pay. Why does the Board not insist upon immediate payment of $11,625.85 by the commercial owner? Why has no lien been been registered?

6. During this same resident review, a further $13,000 in illicit and illegitimate expenses were paid by the Corporation. Why has the Board refused to respond to questions or provide any reasonable response as to why these expenses were paid by the Corporation?

7. During this same resident review, the Board was presented with an invoice from the commercial owner for the cost of renovating the entrance to their condo unit #1. The Board has refused to respond with evidence as to who in fact paid for this. Why does the Board continue its refusal to respond to this or any other expenditure which is questioned by resident unit owners? With some $35,000 to $40,000 of expenditures at question in just this one resident review, how much more illicit and illegitimate spending of resident money has taken place since this review?

8. At the 2018 AGM, residents requested that a further informational meeting was required relating to the proposed “permanent” roof anchor expenditure of over $100,000. Such an expenditure is capital in nature and requires a special resolution where a private polled vote ensures a confidential vote of unit owners. With no call for the requested general and informational meeting for six months following the 2018 AGM, why did the Board suddenly call for a most inappropriate “out the required general meeting vote” on the matter, refuse to consult with residents and further refuse to conduct a voting procedure that provided no resident with an opportunity to speak to the motion or request a private polled vote?

Spadina Towers is in a very precarious financial position. Illegitimate and illicit use of reserve funds has depleted our reserve fund and resulted in unnecessary cash calls for a number of years. The price of units in the property has been severely impacted to the downside as a result. Who will buy a unit in this building where the Board at their own will and often directed by the commercial owner, repeatedly spends resident funds without resident consultation and refuses to seek the legally required approval of residents as per our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act? Who would buy with ongoing cash calls constantly lingering over residents to pay for such illicit and inappropriate conduct? Residents must demand a prompt and meaningful response from the Board to each of the above questions. Further, a resident review of invoices (2016-2019) must take place prior to preparation of the 2018-2019 year end audited report so that residents can be assured of a fully accurate and transparent report.

Any responsibly minded resident owner would agree that such a review is urgently required. As a matter of transparency and democracy, no resident Board member can possibly have any reason to disagree or object to such a review unless of course they have something to hide.  A general meeting should be held as soon as possible to hear the response of the Board to the above questions and determine the date of a resident invoice review. A private polled vote with a secret ballot will be requested in response to any motion relating to this matter so that your position will be only known to you! Don’t simply sit silently and wait for the next cash call! Should you agree that a general meeting be held as soon as possible to review the above issues, please send an email message simply stating YES TO A GENERAL MEETING to spadina@shaw.ca at your earliest convenience. Thankyou!

Following the AGM held on October 6^th, 2019, a written request was made to the Board of Directors regarding the finances of the Corporation and that an informational meeting be held to explain numerous unaddressed issues and questions of residents. Some of the issues included the following:

1. The Board refused to hold a required general meeting to consult with residents and properly obtain a resolution via a private polled vote to spend more than $100,000 for permanent roof anchors clearly not required. The Board has refused to respond as to why they clearly avoided a meeting with residents and refused to permit a private polled vote on this matter.
2.  The Board was questioned as to why the notes to the financial statement presented at the AGM stated that “during the year ended June 30, 2016 the organization made a motion for a special assessment of $950,000 to be placed into the Reserve”. The Board has refused to provide a copy of this supposed resolution and explain why the word organization was now being used to replace the word corporation as defined and required by our Bylaws. 
3. The Board proceeded with a major capital expenditure for landscaping, once again refusing the presentation to residents or any effort seeking their required approval for both the expenditure and how it is to be funded.
4. The Board proceeded with a capital expenditure for front signage again with no consultation with residents or effort to seek their required approval. Further, the Board proceeded in direct contradiction to a signage resolution passed at a previous AGM with the support of residents. Again, the Board has refused to respect this resolution.
5. The Board insisted upon (with no consultation with residents) penalizing residents or their visitors for parking in resident visitor parking for more than four hours. This as a result of parking violations by our resident president and contractors. Again, the Board refuses to ensure enforcement and contractor violations continue every day. The commercial owner and tenants continue to illegally park in commercial visitor parking as well.
6. The AGM was advised of the most recent resident review of invoices and its findings which revealed amounts owing to the Corporation by the commercial owner ($11,625.85) which they have refused to pay. This amount includes costs of their renovations paid by Spadina and their share of common expenses that they have refused to pay. The resident review of a one year period also included a further $13,000 of illegitimate expenditures paid by the property manager. Why did NO RESIDENT BOARD member question this illicit and illegitimate use of resident funds? Who knows how much more will be revealed upon the next resident review? Residents must not permit the commercial owner, management and the Board to refuse resident access to invoice and related documents that they are fully entitled to. At the time of the resident review of invoices, the Board was presented by the commercial owner with an invoice for their new front door entrance for their condo unit 1. The Board has refused to confirm who in fact paid for this door and entrance way.
7. The Board was provided with a resident assessment of the financial position of the Corporation which portrayed a very troubling situation due to careless spending on unnecessary expenditures including the totally unnecessary $100,000 plus on permanent roof anchors where fully safe, certified and compliant temporary anchors would have continued to serve well as they have for more than 40 years. The Board continues to reject any resident request to halt the totally irresponsible spending and rapid depletion of our Reserve Fund. Why are Reserve Fund financial reports not provided monthly instead of once a year?
8. Operating expenses can be reduced dramatically. Yet, the Board refuses to allow residents an opportunity to express their thoughts and comments on this matter at a general meeting.

Before going to another Annual General Meeting, residents should be given an opportunity to become much more informed through mutual consultation with the Board of Directors rather than the usual avoidance and rejection they experience at AGM’s. The Board should no longer be permitted to shy away and avoid a town meeting promised long ago by the Board.  

A general meeting must be held very soon to hear about how and why our money is being spent! A resident review of invoices and other source documents must take place prior to the meeting in order that all residents have an opportunity to receive assurance that no further illicit or illegitimate use of their funds has taken place since the last resident review. Financial mismanagement of the Corporation has dramatically reduced the level of our Reserve Fund which will be totally depleted in the next 2-3 years. This has resulted in a severe negative impact upon property values at Spadina Towers where market values have been reduced by 15 – 30%.  

You will be asked in the near future to support a general meeting to discuss these and other issues that residents may have. This is no time for silence. It’s time to speak up!

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE REVIEW ALL SPADINA TOWERS  RESIDENTS WITH RESPECT TO RESIDENTIAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHO HAVE UNFORTUNATELY CHOSEN TO FOLLOW THE PREVAILING DICTATION OF THEIR ACCEPTED LEADER, THE COMMERCIAL OWNER. Such “followers” are obviously not limited to residential Board members, but include other residents who have as well, simply followed blindly, the instructions of their accepted leader without questioning the wisdom of those instructions. Such irresponsible behavior is commonly referenced as that of a “lemming”.

DEFINITION OF “lemming”

What It Is –   A lemming does whatever the crowd does.

What it does –  A lemming is a short, furry rodent that is noted for its tendency to migrate en masse, regardless of the danger of the location or the stupidity of the move. Lemmings follow the prevailing wisdom without really questioning that wisdom.

It has been clearly demonstrated that residential Board members and a minority of unit owners at Spadina Towers, have chosen to act in this manner and accept the prevailing “wisdom” of the self proclaimed dictatorship of their accepted leader, obviously without questioning that “prevailing wisdom”.     

The residential Board members have clearly demonstrated much more respect for the interests of their self proclaimed and accepted leader, the commercial owner, rather than that of their fellow residents. As a result, residential board members have effectively provided and ensured control of the corporation to the commercial owner. As a result, the commercial owner is assured control of the Corporation who with the clear support of residential Board members, results in a 54.7% controlling interest of the Corporation WITHOUT THE NEED FOR ANY RESIDENT PARTICIPATION IN THE VOTE!  Do residents understand this? Unfortunately they do not!

Why is it that residents have neglected the opportunity of sector representation whereby they would control their own affairs and the commercial owner would control their own affairs with their respective interests represented at the Board level? Both sectors would of course be fully subject to the requirements of the Condominium Property Act and the Bylaws of the Corporation.

Residents should be concerned but apparently are not, by the refusal of the Board to provide any form of report on activity in our Reserve Fund Account. Management (the commercial owner) deems such reporting unnecessary, yet residential Board members again “follow along” and agree with their self proclaimed leader. The finances of Spadina Condominium Corporation are in an obvious serious state of neglect due to irresponsible management. This was brought to light at the 2018 AGM, yet many residents simply followed along blindly and accepted the irresponsible financial commentary provided by the commercial owner and his residential Board member followers. Questions and comments from resident attendees were as usual simply rejected as being unworthy of response!

This negligent, and irresponsible conduct on the part of management (the commercial owner) to freely and at their own will, control the Corporation with the full support of residential Board members must end immediately. Residents have an option. They can speak up and demand sector representation via a process of an independent and private polled vote of resident owners, not to be contaminated by the commercial owner’s biased and conflicting interests. The commercial unit owners can hold their own vote to adopt commercial sector representation, thus providing a fully democratic resolution to the long history of failed governance and conflicts of interest at Spadina Towers.

The only other option of residents: Simply follow along and say nothing!

April 17, 2019

SPADINA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION

C/O John Beckman

702-730 Spadina Crescent East

SASKATOON, SK

S7K 4H7

Dear Sir:

The Board’s attempt to dictate a special resolution to unit owners and simply ask them to sign on is totally inappropriate. This proposed expenditure uses reserve funds and comes with concerns of unit owners as to our financial position. Unit owners have received no information on the status of our reserve fund since the year end financial report of June 30^th, 2018 and are therefore unable to responsibly approve any such expenditure.

The proper thing to do is hold a General meeting so that unit owners can be informed of the corporations current financial position and have an open discussion including questions regarding both finances and the proposed expenditure. A motion is required and unit owners must be provided an opportunity to speak to the motion at a properly convened general meeting subject to the required written notice. Further, requests for a polled vote and a private ballot particularly for a Special Resolution must be accepted by the Board. I personally am requesting that a polled vote be conducted with a private ballot for any such expenditure.

In your reasons provided as to why roof anchors are required for Spadina Towers, you state that “So if we are going to swing someone over the edge of the building from the roof, anchors are required”.  We have always used anchors and no one swings anyone over the edge of a building. An experienced, qualified and fully certified contractor has always since 1977 provided our building with window cleaning and exterior maintenance using a fully compliant temporary anchor system as is required by Occupational Health & Safety. Why spend $100,000 plus on permanent anchors when fully compliant temporary anchor systems are included in the contractors service anyway? Most importantly, this building has no business spending $100,000 on something totally unnecessary given the state of our most troubling financial position.

Please conduct a General Meeting to be held as soon as possible should you wish to properly present your motion.

Yours truly,

Dennis M. Tofin

Our Board of Director returns home and immediately DEMANDS A VOTE WITHIN TWO DAYS on a special resolution to approve a major capital expenditure of approximately $88,500 + 11% taxes WITH NO MENTION OF  ENGINEERING COSTS. Special resolutions are in normal corporations including condominiums, conducted via the required voting procedure at a general meeting where owners are permitted to speak for or against the proposed resolution.  Management and the Board of our corporation, does not conduct its affairs in any NORMAL fashion and refuses to respect normal democratic governance practices. A NORMAL corporation would call a General meeting to present such a major special resolution to be held with no less than two weeks written notice. This Board is simply afraid to be presented with the facts of the matter. Why the urgency? We have been without permanent roof anchors the entire life of this condominium with no problem.

The Board states the following:

1. Roof anchors will replace an obsolete system that no longer meets today’s safety standards for fall prevention. INCORRECT. We have NO SUCH OBSOLETE SYSTEM. As like many high rise buildings in Saskatoon, we have always required contractors who provide a fully certified temporary anchor system and provide full indemnification to our Corporation from any liability.
2. Roof anchors are needed to allow access to wash windows and inspect and maintain the concrete panels. INCORRECT. Again, since 1977 all window cleaning (not conducted in the past five years) and maintenance of concrete panels (only repaired once since 1977), has been conducted by contractors who have provided with their service, a TEMPORARY anchor system where we have required confirmation of their conformance with the OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY ACT and indemnification of liability to our Corporation.

To help residents understand this issue, since 1977 we have been using fully compliant TEMPORARY ANCHOR SYSTEMS, with a minimal cost included in fees paid to contractors for window cleaning and exterior maintenance. The Board is now demanding that we spend $100,000 PLUS ENGINEERING COSTS for an unnecessary PERMANENT ANCHOR SYSTEM rather than have contractors continue to provide service with a TEMPORARY ANCHOR SYSTEM they INCLUDE anyway. Why spend this kind of money when it is a known fact that our building is facing imminent depletion of our reserve funds because of such unnecessary expenditures? In recent years, our Board has proceeded all on their own with overspending on unnecessary capital expenditures of more than $1,000,000. Residents don’t realize it yet, but they should know that they will continue to be called upon for substantial cash calls to keep supporting these unnecessary costs.

Temporary anchor systems are fully permitted subject to the following OHS regulations:

116.3(1) Where a worker uses a personal fall arrest system or a travel restraint

system, an employer, contractor or owner shall ensure that an anchor point or

anchor plate that meets the requirements of this section is used as part of that

system.

(2) An employer, contractor or owner shall ensure that a temporary anchor point

used in a travel restraint system:

(a) has an ultimate load capacity of at least 3.5 kilonewtons (800 pounds-force)

per worker attached in any direction in which the load may be applied;

(b) is installed and used according to the manufacturer’s specifications;

(c) is permanently marked as being for travel restraint only; and

(d) is removed by the last worker from use on the earlier of:

(i) the date the work project for which it is intended is completed; and

(ii) the time specified by the manufacturer.

Simply Ignore the Special Resolution And Demand a General Meeting!

Spadinanewscenter.com April 16, 2019

Humidity 2018-12

The scheduling of drilling by the commercial owner to take place early in the morning and in the evening, is intentional so that this loud noise takes place outside of commercial tenant office hours. There is no regard for residents and clearly disrupts residents at a time of day when they deserve and are entitled to peace and quiet.

Again, our residential Board members remain silent and say nothing in support of their fellow residents.It appears that they too believe that peace and quiet should be ensured for commercial tenants with no regard for residents. Why not limit this loud racket from 10 AM to 4PM to accommodate all building occupants and not just preference for commercial tenants?

The timing of such activity has for an extended period of time contravened the requirements of our building Regulations, Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act.It is clearly about time that our residential Board members step up and ensure that residential interests are no longer disrespected.

Since the time of new heating system installed in 2010, unnecessary and excessive spending on Reserve Fund expenditures has totalled approximately $1,000,000. With unnecessary over spending of some $500,000 on new hot water boilers versus a more efficient replacement with new steam boilers, along with a further approximately $500,000 in unnecessary overspending in the parkade resurfacing project because of “claimed structural damage” which was found not to exist, unit owners have contributed over $1,000,000 in unnecessary funding using primarily ILLICIT cash calls. The boiler project was not supported by a required special resolution nor were the resurfacing and elevator projects legally approved by unit owners. The Board simply proceeded with these projects on their own and continue to refuse to provide to his day, a copy of the required resolutions approving these projects and the means of funding as is required by our Bylaws. Residents were permitted no say in the matter. If you attended AGM’s over the past number of years, you will recall that those residents who would attempt to speak to such unnecessary spending, were immediately criticized by the Board and deemed by them to be troublemakers. Most residents failed to question such Board conduct and simply sat like silent lambs waiting for what would come next.

What did in fact come next, was a serious and continuing deterioration of our financial position. Yet, the lambs remain silent. Our current financial position is in a very serious predicament and should be of great concern to all residents. The Board had an opportunity to propose a responsible budget to address this dire situation at the October, 2018 AGM, but chose to avoid and conceal the severity of the situation. Residents were left with no idea as to where our deficient current financial plan is taking them other than the inference of the Board that more (illicit) CASH CALLS would be coming. Cash calls would of course only enable continuing concealment of the Board’s financial practises at the expense of residents.

First of all, the Corporation cannot afford to proceed with the Reserve Fund expenditures the Board has proposed until such time as funds are available as per funding resolutions provided with support of residents. To proceed with such expenditures without resident participation in approval of such expenditures and their means of funding, will certainly represent financial negligence on the part of the Board in contravention of Sections 10.4, 10.5, and 11.8 of the Bylaws and further provisions of the Act. We have a very serious problem here, and the Board cannot be allowed to continue acting in contravention of our Bylaws and the Act.

A General Meeting of unit owners must be held in the next 45 days where residents are entitled to vote on a budget that would consider a full reassessment of our current and projected financial position and ensure a legitimate unit owners approval of any Reserve Fund expenditures including any of those “suggested” at the AGM. Unnecessary expenditures such as roof anchors must be removed from the budget entirely as they have been proven to be totally unnecessary as confirmed by the Saskatchewan Occupational Health & Safety branch. Hopefully the Board has as per requests of residents at the AGM, obtained more accurate estimates of proposed expenditures so that unit owners can approve such expenditures which will be subject to appropriate tender procedures, and NOT simply left to the Board’s discretion. Tenders are simply a standard and responsible procurement procedure. This General Meeting must also provide residents an opportunity to voice their opinion on a number of issues where time did not permit or which the Board refused to consider at the AGM. These are urgent matters as well.

An analysis of our current financial status as it relates to our Reserve Fund is attached for your review. As you can see, the Board’s proposed (not yet approved) Reserve Fund budget will result in a total depletion of our Reserve Fund and leave the Corporation in a deficit equity position of more than $100,000 within three years UNLESS RESIDENTS ARE PREPARED TO ACT IMMEDIATELY. This is obviously a most troubling matter and requires the immediate attention of both the Board and residents. Should any resident question the contents of this memo and the need for urgent attention, it is suggested that they consult with their financial advisor or accountant who I can assure will agree with the urgency of this matter and express support for options of address including the following proposal:

SPADINA TOWERS Reserve Fund Proposal 2018-12-01

Until there has been responsible address to our serious financial issues, any prospective purchaser of a condominium at Spadina Towers who conducts due diligence, will immediately be troubled by what they see. What they will want to see is confirmation of responsible Board governance which includes responsible financial management, FULLY INDEPENDENT property management, and Board member ethics disclosure. Until responsible address to these issues is taken serious and are acted upon, residents will continue to find that the value of their investment in this building is left with very serious question of concern including perception within the condo resale market where such financial considerations are taken very seriously.

Snow Cleaning Video 2018-11-10

The above is just another video taken of the snow removal contractor who after completing their service at the Medical Arts (as shown on this video), they then do the same at Spadina Towers. This video was taken on Saturday, November 10, 2018 a long weekend. The forecast for the following week was for above normal temperatures, yet this contractor came in and obviously displayed a fake service which was simply not required.

Do Spadina Towers residents simply accept the expense of such fake snow removal on their property?

SPADINA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION AGM October 4, 2018 Follow Up Comments 

1. Approval was granted by unit owners for obtaining detailed cost information relating to the $317,700 of proposed Reserve Fund expenditures in the current year. Given the current financial position of the Corporation, such expenditures would deplete the Reserve Fund entirely which is obviously not acceptable. A General Meeting is required within 30 days to address this serious issue and permit residents to participate in the required approval process of Reserve Fund expenditures. The proposed Roof Anchor project requires as special resolution as it is a capital expenditure. However, this project is totally unnecessary as has been confirmed by the Saskatchewan Occupational Health & Safety branch.

2. The notes of the financial statements include #1, “During they year ended June 30, 2016, the organization made a motion for a special assessment of $950,000 to be placed into the Reserve. I asked the Board at the AGM for written confirmation of this “motion” and the required resulting “resolution” along with the reason why the word “organization” rather than “corporation” is now being used by the Board. Residents are yet again reminded that ALL RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES MUST BE PRESENTED IN A BUDGET AT THE AGM or other General Meeting, AND DULY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF UNIT OWNERS WHO MUST AT THE SAME MEETING, APPROVE A FURTHER RESOLUTION OF FUNDING THOSE EXPENDITURES. The Board advised that a copy of an appropriate resolution would be immediately forthcoming. Yet, no such confirmation has been provided to date.

3. The Board proceeded with a major expenditure and change to landscaping during the year. Again, please provide in writing a copy of the approval resolution required from unit owners for this project and a cost breakdown of the project including invoices with documentation approving funding by unit owners.

4. The Board proceeded with a signage expenditure that was contrary to the wishes of residents, that being a resolution of approval to establish signage on the front of the building to appropriately identify the building as SPADINA TOWERS. The Board rejected this resolution that was clearly approved at an Annual General meeting in 2005. This resolution was in fact approved by unit owners, clearly supported by a recording of that meeting. Again, it is requested that the Board provide a written copy of the resolution by unit owners that did in fact authorize via resolution, a totally different  expenditure (as per the wishes of the commercial owner) and its funding. 

5. As was noted at the meeting, there has been zero enforcement of parking regulations. With the addition of new regulations, there will be even greater need for EFFECTIVE enforcement. The Board should demonstrate such enforcement effective immediately. As advised at the meeting, unit owners (both commercial and residential) have been found to the greatest violators (ie. Mr. Beckman parked his vehicle in visitor parking for five consecutive months during the current year).  Commercial owners and their tenants (not visitors) also are the major violators in commercial visitor parking, which is a major contributor to violations in residential visitor parking where commercial visitors simply park in resident visitor parking as a result of no parking available in commercial visitor parking. Building service contractors further continue to violate these regulations as well. Home care workers (who are fully entitled to reimbursement for their metered parking expense, are also a major violator). Cleaning up these current violators is what is required by management, not penalizing residents with a four hour visitor parking limitation.

______________________________________________________________________

RESERVE AND COMMON EXPENSE FUND OUTSTANDING ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE

1. The scheme of apportionment for contributions to the common expenses funds and reserve funds of the Corporation shall be as follows:
2. c) The budget for the Commercial Property (the “Commercial Unit Owner’s Budget Share) shall include the following:

iii) 44.31% of the common expenses and the reserve fund expenses related to the entire underground parkade and all of the outdoor parking stalls;

vii) 44.31% of the common expenses and all other reserve fund expenses relating to the common room, hallway, kitchen, bedroom, exercise room, washrooms, shower, sauna, and pool area as shown on Level 4 of the Condominium Plan, other than for decorating, furnishings, or exercise equipment;

44. xi) 44.31% of all other common expenses and reserve fund expenses not otherwise allocated.

1. c) Notwithstanding Section 1.2(a), no unit owner shall do any of the following acts, nor permit any tenant or other occupant of a unit, or guest or invitee to any of the following acts, namely:
2. iv) make any changes in the plumbing, electrical or other mechanical system of a unit

Fobs $ 5013  Fobs (4^th floor common area)

2000 Fobs (Unit 1) + 2300 Bike Racks + 1069 Carts= $10,442 x .4431=$4626.85 + $7000 for commercial renovations (adding heating lines during renovations)=$11,625.85 PAYABLE TO CORPORATION BY COMMERCIAL OWNER=$11,625.85 PAYABLE TO CORPORATION BY COMMERIAL OWNER   

During my review of invoices for the 2014-15 fiscal year and later Reserve Fund reports (2016) I discovered more than $20,000 of illegitimate expenditures by the Corporation which includes the $7000 noted above. During that review, I was advised that there was an invoice submitted to the Board for payment approval by the commercial owner for an ADDITIONAL AMOUNT relating to their own purchase order for a new door and entry improvement to their condo unit #1. I was to be provided with a copy of any invoice and any payment made by the Corporation in relation to that door entry imp improvement conducted by the commercial owner. Such documentation was never provided to me. Residents must be entitled to review all invoices and other source documents for the past five years. This would relieve the lack of transparency and possibly reveal other such amounts payable to the Reserve Fund. It is requested that these documents be made available to residents in the next 30 days.

Please provide in writing available dates for the review of records. As well, please confirm that the $11,625.85 has been paid to the Corporation by the commercial owner. Resident unit owners refuse to pay for commercial unit owner expenses.

Is your condo board above board? Tips for evaluating condo governance | CBC News

In a recent estoppel (status) certificate prepared by the Corporation for a unit owner selling their condo, the following statement was included in that document: Item #11 of the Estoppel Certificate

The Corporation has adopted a funding plan in conformity with the recommendation in the Reserve Fund Study Report: (Yes or No)

-YES. If yes, provide the particulars of compliance:

-NO. If no, why not, or in what way, is the funding plan not consistent with the recommendation in the report? THE BOARD CHOSE NO with the following reason state below, as there was no compliance with the recommendation in the Reserve Fund Study Report.

“The Board of Directors chose to implement a cash call rather than using Reserve Funds”. Now we know why the Board has refused to permit attendance of the Reserve Fund author to attend and present their report before any meeting of residents!

So now you have it, our Board has admitted in writing that they have clearly contravened our Bylaws which REQUIRE THAT special assessments (cash calls), can only be made when common expense funds or RESERVE FUNDS will be insufficient to meet the BUDGETED COMMON EXPENSE OR RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES.

This has been a clear obstruction of the Bylaws which requires that RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES must first be included in budget presented to and approved by unit owners. The Board has refused to permit unit owners to approve Reserve Fund Expenditures AND AS WELL, unit owner approval of Reserve Expenditure Funding. This of course is a clear obstruction of the requirements of our Bylaws.

Cash calls have been a repeated illegal practice and clear attempt of the Board to circumvent our Bylaws which requires (along with the recommendations of our Reserve Fund Study) regular contributions within monthly fees to prepare for funding of any future RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES. This is what responsible financial management requires! NOT IRRESPONSIBLE AND SURPRISE CASH CALLS, which are totally detrimental to unit owners for numerous reasons.

QUESTION: Would you as a unit owner when selling your unit, wish to see the statement “The Board of Directors chose to implement a cash call rather than using Reserve Funds” in your estoppel certificate? Of course not! Recent sellers have found this out the hard way, when astute purchasers demanded a much reduced purchase price with uncertainty of continuing illegitimate cash calls a primary reason! Expect up to a 20% reduction below market value for this very reason!

Speak to your financial advisor or lawyer. If they are responsible advisors, I garantee they will advise you to reject any further cash calls and demand Board adherence to our Bylaws.

The above posts were made by CAI (Community Association Institute) members to the association forum. Spadina Towers has probably the worst of management/Board conflict of interest issues in the country.  Only a fool would not agree with the urgency of contracting a TOTALLY INDEPENDENT PROPERTY MANAGER that has no association with Board members. These conflicts have cost our owners hundreds of thousands of dollars for unnecessary and illegitimate expenditures that have never received the required legal approval as per our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act.

Spadina News Center

Parking regulations continue to be abused by who? The commercial owner and the Board of Directors. Residents are not pleased!

For years, the commercial owner has chosen at will to use commercial visitor parking stalls for their own personal use. As per our Bylaws and building regulations, these stalls are to be used ONLY FOR CLIENTS VISITING COMMERCIAL TENANTS. They are not to be used by the commercial owners or their related entities which includes the property management company or other related entities. Unfortunately, the caretaker has been instructed to not enforce these Bylaws and Regulations.

For many months now, we have residential Board members, who have as well contravened these same Bylaws and Regulations, where they simply use residential visitor parking at their own will as they have a second vehicle, but refuse to rent a parking stall for their second vehicle. Again, there is no enforcement of this infraction by the caretaker. HOWEVER, any non Board member resident, is immediately informed by the caretaker, and often with harassment, to respect our Bylaws and Regulations in this regard.

Both of these infractions on the part of the commercial owner and that of residential Board members, create unnecessary pressure on residential visitor parking, of course at the expense and inconvenience of residential unit owners and their legitimate visitors.

Residents can no longer remain mute on such infractions while at the same time accept caretaker harassment upon any such infraction on their own part!

WINDOW CLEANING & FACIAL REPAIR

As previously advised, qualified Saskatoon contractors, including DJ Window Cleaning have been prepared to clean our windows over the past four years. They use certified equipment including temporary roof anchors and suspension equipment which is included in their window cleaning fees. Certification conforms with requirements of the Occupational Health & Safety Act. Why has the Board refused to clean common area windows as per our Bylaws?

As for other repair work which may be considered to the exterior of the building, there is no need for a permanent installation of roof anchors. Again, fully safety certified equipment is available in Saskatoon on a rental basis to contractors to conduct such work. This includes temporary anchors, swing stage and related equipment. The cost of such equipment rental is as follows:

Rental-Swingstage c/w hoists, power cords, 110 V box, all required rigging: suspension cables, life lines, rope grabs, fist grips, tieback cables, anchors (4).

Rental (one month)                                 $1,330.00

Setup of Stage                                          1,000.00

Take Down of Stage                                  1,000.00

$3,330.00  Taxes/freight additional

With fully certified equipment available for rental to contractors to do this work, why would Spadina Towers consider spending a reported estimate of approximately $100,000 for roof anchors only when ALL equipment can be rented, installed and removed for $3330.00? As for window cleaning, such equipment is included in the window cleaners fee, so no such rental is necessary. In the past 40 plus years, we have completed window cleaning with contractors using FULLY CERTIFIED EQUIPMENT. Only once in these 40 plus years have we conducted facial maintenance to the exterior of the building, and in that event, the work was conducted by a contractor who was required as per the contract, to confirm liability insurance and certification from the Workers Compensation Board.

Please bring an end to this unnecessary dilemma and arrange to have our windows cleaned ASAP and end any foolish consideration of spending thousands of dollars on permanent roof anchors. Of course, any such expenditure is capital in nature and requires approval by special resolution of unit owners.

It has now been some four years since exterior residential windows have been cleaned. Our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act clearly state that the duties of the Corporation include common area maintenance of which cleaning of common area exterior windows is obviously included. The Act states the following:

Duties 35-(1) A corporation is responsible for the enforcement of its bylaws and the control, management and administration of the units, and of the common property and common facilities. (2) Without restricting subsection (1), the duties of a corporation include the following: (a) to keep the common property, common facilities and services units in a state of good and serviceable repair and to maintain them properly;

The common area exterior of all windows including residential balcony wall windows, are clearly designated as common area and defined in the Corporations Registered Plan as follows under UNIT BOUNDARIES (B) Horizontally:From the Unit Side of exterior concrete masonry walls, block surfaces, or inside edges of the glass windows of walls separating a unit from the adjacent balcony common area, to the unit side of concrete masonry walls, block surfaces or center line of walls (where indicated).

The OUTSIDE edges of windows are of course BEYOND THE legal boundary of a unit and ARE therefore common property. As such, their maintenance including cleaning and repair, is clearly the responsibility of the Corporation. The governing authority of ALL regulations pertaining to window cleaning contractors and equipment certification is clearly outlined in the Occupational Health & Safety Act (OHS). OHS has stongly advised that that Spadina residents are being misled, and there is NO REASON TO NOT CONTRACT available and fully certified contractors to conduct this cleaning, yet the commercial owner has directed the Board to reject window cleaning.

After four years, it is time for the Board to act.  The windows must be cleaned now!

Why has the Spadina Condominium Board refused for years to allow residents to review invoices, bank records and other source documents of the Corporation? Evidence does exist that corporation funds have been used by the commercial owner to pay for improvements to their own units as well as other illegitimate expenses. It is also true that many expenditures of the Corporation have been illegitimate and conducted without the required approvals as specified in the Bylaws and Act.

Residents must be permitted access to all financial records of the Corporation.

For the many who are not familiar with financial statements, they may not recognize the absence of a Balance Sheet and Reserve Fund Report with the monthly reports disclosed. They reflect where most of our money is being spent. Why is this being concealed from residents? Unfortunately, the commercial owner owns and is in control of the management company and dictates what financial information is disclosed (and not disclosed) to residents throughout the year. The treasurer unfortunately accepts this conflict of interest. Residential Board members avoid any question of this practise and simply accept monthly reports as reported, whether by ignorance, intentional neglect, and most likely both. This year after year absence of complete financial reports must come to an end.

The Board is requested (and obligated) to provide evidence of any of the required approvals by unit owners of Reserve Fund expenditures since the heating system expenditure was completed.

Our treasurer has been questioned many times about this practise which is contrary to our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act, but refuses to respond to the many questions regarding the incomplete and inaccurate financial reports which are in contravention of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles but nonetheless reported to residents anyway. This is in fact illicit conduct on the part of any professional accountant(s) of which we have two on our Board of Directors, who direct and approve of illicit procedures conducted by Colliers Property Management and the McClocklin Group of Companies”. Yes, residents have been directly advised to act upon instructions from the “McClocklin Group of Companies” who of course have no business in instructing any matters at Spadina Towers.

Unfortunately, many residents have little understanding of responsible and transparent accounting procedures, and as a consequence, both the Board and commercial owner feel free to conduct illicit behavior without any concern for appropriate transparency and accountability. Unfortunately as well, most Board members are not necessarily proficient in accounting or basic property management practices which certainly doesn’t help.

Over and over again, qualified accounting and property management professionals have advised that what Spadina Condominium Corporation requires is INDEPENDENT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT where such accounting and management of resident funds is managed in a credible and transparent manner. Until this is accomplished, residents cannot expect responsible management of the Corporation and particularly transparency with accounting of their funds.

It is most unfortunate that certain Board members have advised that there are too many issues to address at the annual AGM and promised that not one but several, TOWN HALL meetings would be required to allow sufficient time to hear and discuss the many issues of concern to residents. That promise was broken very quickly after it was proposed. The Board is petrified of responsible questioning from residents particularly as it relates to illicit and non transparent practices. In the meantime, Board members have refused to provide residents with any opportunity to hear their concerns. The commercial owner has clearly demanded that this position of avoidance, concealment and disrespect be adhered to by all Board members.

It is most interesting that the Board advises that delays in financial reports were due to “adjustments from the auditors after the full audit”.  What are those “after audit adjustments” made by the Auditor? Just how foolish and naïve are Board members to make any such audacious statement? It is requested of the Board to provide a complete report on these adjustments to the 2017 Audit and ensure response to any questions of residents. A good deal of information particularly within the Reserve Fund has been concealed and must be revealed upon the request of any unit owner. Full transparency must be demonstrated.

A number of chapters of the Canadian Condominium Institute are now requiring that all Board members of Condominium Associations complete a course in condominium property management which includes a major accounting component. The Spadina Board of Directors should be proactive in this regard and ensure that all directors complete such a course certified by the Institute. This would be a positive step forward for our Corporation to ensure that our Board members are well informed and help ensure that they are qualified to act in the best interests of our residents.

SPECIAL NOTE TO RESIDENTS

Some residents will continue to ask just why these expressions of concern continue to be made to the Board of Directors.

The answer is obviously very simple. The governance of our Corporation should be guided by the provisions of both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act. Our Board of Directors has however consistently rejected these legally required guidelines and effectively rejected and disrespected the interests of residents.

Millions of dollars have been spent in recent years by the Corporation, without the required participation and approvals of residents as is required by our Bylaws and the Act. The Board has intentionally chosen to use their own unilateral discretion on Reserve Fund expenditures and their means of funding, both of which require resident participation and approval.

For many years now, required Reserve Fund Budgets have not been presented to unit owners at a General Meeting. The Board and commercial owner has simply proceeded on their own with the deceptive tactic that they can proceed without residential approval and avoid the required:

1. UNIT OWNER APPROVAL OF PROPOSED EXPENDITURES WITHIN A REQUIRED RESERVE FUND BUDGET

2. UNIT OWNER APPROVAL OF THE MEANS OF FUNDING

Instead, the Board has chosen to circumvent these legal requirements and declare Reserve Fund expenditures to be approved solely at their discretion. Further, they illegally declare CASH CALLS to be used as a primary funding mechanism which is in total contravention of our Bylaws.

Legal and responsible management of Reserve Fund expenditures requires regular Reserve Fund contributions within monthly condo fees APPROVED BY THE OWNERS, in order to meet future Reserve Fund expenditures. Residents, who participate in both approval of expenditures and the amount of Reserve Fund contributions, then have some sense of security in knowing what their future financial obligations are.

Cash calls on the other hand are NOT to be used as a primary means of funding. Their illicit and unpredictable use, have caused serious implications upon residents in recent years where they have no idea of what or when a demand for cash will be insisted of them. This well known practise by our Board has become well known within the real estate community and has resulted in severely depressed resale prices at Spadina Towers.  If residents don’t stand up for themselves, this illegal conduct will only continue.

Would residents prefer that these many concerns relevant to all, be simply kept in silence at their expense? Any responsible resident would obviously say no and welcome a supporting voice in support of their interests. The above comments are clearly supported by both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act. Those who disagree with these comments, must be prepared to demonstrate support of their position with reference to these governing legal documents as well.

Beckman Letter 2018-03-09 Lock Door

HALLWAY FLOOR SHAMPOOING

Why would cleaning of hallway carpets be conducted in early March, the sloppiest month of the year? After waiting many months for long overdue shampooing, surely it would be more reasonable to wait until the worst month of the year has past before doing so.

The hallway carpets have for a number of years been constantly filthy and neglected. It is apparent that management’s and the Board’s standard of cleanliness is far less than that of most residents. Many residents are justifiably embarrassed, constantly reminded by their visitors. Prior to current management, these carpets were shampood quarterly by the caretaker using equipment of the Corporation. The caretaker has now been relieved of this duty at the expense of residents. For those unit owners who are not ashamed of the filthy state of our carpets, they should be reminded that their standards are no better than those of the Board.

The selection of carpets several years ago was a grave mistake. Professional carpet suppliers and cleaners providing services in our building ever since, have questioned why such a carpet was ever chosen. No further expenditures on our hallways should even be considered until the carpets have been replaced with a more suitable carpet.

PARKADE FLOOR CLEANING

Again, acceptance by Board members of the filthy and neglected parkade floor is unacceptable and does not respect the living standards of those residents who have respect for their property. Prior to current management, the parkade floor was washed AT LEAST quarterly by the caretaker. The current caretaker has been further relieved of this duty as well and unnecessary contractor costs are incurred at the expense of residents. Residents live in this building with the parkade as part of their home and their standards are obviously much greater than those of the commercial owner who has once again convinced the Board to minimize appropriate cleaning at the expense of residents. Residents deserve much more respect than this and should not have to bare the unnecessary costs imposed upon them by the commercial owner’s directive shamefully supported by residential Board members.

SNOW REMOVAL

It is somewhat embarrassing for residents to witness on numerous occassions, the snow removal contractor remove snow one evening and then return the next evening to spend several hours again scraping the ground when there is no snow to remove. This has happened many times over the past several winters. The video of such conduct is somewhat entertaining. Why is no one monitoring this activity?

WINDOW CLEANING & ROOF ANCHORS

Occupational Health & Safety has advised that any person or entity advising residents that windows can not be cleaned until roof anchors are installed, are simply attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of residents. They further advise that this matter is totally within their jurisdiction and all legal regulations and requirements are clearly outlined in the Act. Spadina Towers has for more than 35 years had windows cleaned by contractors with certified portable roof anchors that have worked just fine and with no safety infractions. They have been prepared to clean for the past five years even though the building refuses to have this work done. The Board must simply abide by the Occupational Health & Safety Act and continue to contract a qualified contractor. Why would the Board pay thousands of dollars for unnecessary roof anchors. Any attempted decision to make such a purchase must be presented to unit owners and receive approval at a General Meeting.

VESTIBULE SECURITY

We have a caretaker whose duties include inspections of common areas at night. For some 40 years, should someone be found present but not welcome, they are simply asked to leave and if necessary, a simple call to police is made. That is a duty of the caretaker. To require a fob on the exterior door is certainly a major inconvenience for residents. What resident is expected to run all the way down to the entrance to allow entry to guests arriving later in the evening or even be able to allow an emergency ambulance entry. Yes, the Corporation could be seriously liable. This requires consultation with residents at a General Meeting, and not something for the Board to decide on the own. Is the Board attempting to eliminate the duties of the caretaker entirely?

Conclusion:  The Board, management and caretaker, must respectfully and responsibly act with respect for residents. The commercial owner and management should not be permitted to continue their obvious ongoing neglect of residential interests and residential Board members must start to represent the interests of their fellow residents rather than simply saying “yes” and bowing to the commercial owner’s demands.

YET ONCE AGAIN, the commercial owners have with inappropriate and illicit support of the Board of Directors, contravened the Bylaws of the Corporation and the Condominium Property Act, by proceeding with a CAPITAL EXPENDITURE without consulting all unit owners via a General Meeting and seeking both approval of a major capital expenditure project and its means of funding. No such resolutions were sought as are legally required, and therefore this project is obviously against the law. An exact contravention recently took place in another Condo Corporation and the Court found the Board of Directors liable for damages.

What is very further very troubling, at the October 2013 AGM, unit owners overwhelmingly supported a motion to install SIGNAGE AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING TO IDENTIFY THE BUILDING AS SPADINA TOWERS. The motion was FALSELY REPORTED AS A FAILED MOTION WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY MOST INAPPROPRIATE AND CERTAINLY ILLEGAL CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE BOARD. We now have 100% of our front signage exclusively commercial! CONFIRMATION OF THE SUPPORT FOR SPADINA TOWERS SIGNAGE, WAS AUDIO RECORDED AND IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST TO UNIT OWNERS.

This further illicit conduct will form a part of the legal objection to the Board’s conduct within the illicit landscaping project.

This case is as follows:

Boily upholds condo owners rights

Boily v. Carleton Condominium Corporation 145, 2014 ONCA 574 (CanLII)

by By Lisa Laredo — AdvocateDaily.com

The case of Boily v. Carleton Condominium Corporation 145, 2014 ONCA 574 (CanLII) involves a disagreement between the directors of a condominium corporation and the condominium residents. As a result of repair work done to a parking garage, the landscaping around the condominium was damaged. The directors proposed to make changes to the landscaping upon repairs, but the residents wished to have the work restored to the original design.

The Condominium Act, 1998 sets out the requirements of the board of directors to acquire a majority rule to make any “substantial changes” to common areas. Following a ruling of a motion judge that the alterations constituted substantial change, and a meeting in which the new landscaping plan failed to get the required assent of 66 per cent, the directors hired a company to start on the landscaping work regardless.

After a second appearance in court – where the directors were again ordered to restore the original landscaping design, were held in contempt of the previous court order, and received personal financial sanctions – the work continued to progress with substantial deviations from the original design. On appeal, the court upheld that the directors were in contempt of court for continuing with the changes to the landscape, but it did reduce the personal fines for the directors.

What can a person learn from this case? When living in a condominium, it is vital to understand the rules in place that guide the operation and day-to-day life in the building. What is a resident allowed to do, what decisions can the board of directors make, and what control does a resident have over decisions being made? In this case, it was only thanks to the understanding of the residents that they knew changes to the landscaping required their approval. Boily upholds condo owners rights

Boily v. Carleton Condominium Corporation 145, 2014 ONCA 574 (CanLII)

It would be very shameful if residents once again, simply accepted such illicit conduct by our Board of Directors and the undue influence upon them by the commercial owner. ALL RESIDENTS MUST INFORM THEMSELVES OF THE PROTECTIONS THEY HAVE WITHIN OUR BYLAWS AND THE CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY ACT. There is no excuse for resident naivety or neglect. Shamefully, this has resulted in SPADINA TOWERS being the only property on Spadina Crescent within the business district to have no green lawn. This of course, in contravention of the lush greenary theme of properties (particularly residential) on the Crescent. Resident silence is nothing other than shameful. Fortunately, yes, the matter will be legally challenged regardless of the commercial owner and Board’s blatant obstruction of justice via their attempt to prevent democratic objection from residents.

Health & Safety Concerns Call for Return of Central Humidifier

The above photo was taken at Spadina Towers on October 15, 2018. No promised inspection has been made as of the current date. The filter has obviously not been changed for A VERY LONG time and is almost (if not totally blocked) with filthy debri and dust. No original green colored fabric remains. This Enercon unit is constantly in overload mode in its attempt to maintain temperature levels demanded by the thermostat. Unfortunately, as a result, this unit is subject to imminent failure.

Such maintenance neglect is why Enercon units fail and require replacement. This particular Enercon has not been inspected or serviced for many years. When were your Enercon units last serviced as per the required procedure noted below or has your unit been replaced due to this maintenance neglect? Continue to say nothing and your Enercon heating or cooling may suddenly not be available to you when you really need it! Residents have often waited for many months for replacement.

Maintenance Unit performance is only maintained at optimum levels with maintenance of the unit simplified by implementing the following preventive measures taken from the manufacturers maintenance manual:

– Filters should be inspected at least every three months, and replaced or cleaned when dirty

-Coils should be inspected at least every six months or more often as necessary. The frequency of the required inspection/cleaning is dependent on the operating hours of the system, filter maintenance and efficiency, and dirt load.

It is very unfortunate that promises are made by the Board year after year to properly maintain Enercon units, yet these promises are neglected and simply left without inspections and maintenance until Enercon units fail. Worst of all, residents suffer with poor air quality, insufficient heat, increased energy consumption and the very negative impact upon humidity levels. Insufficient perimeter heating means residents are unable to reside in comfort anywhere near their front windows due to insufficient perimeter line heating where reduced heating levels are intentional. How can management and the Board neglect proper operation of our heating system simply to continue with their most disrespectful efforts to demonstrate reduced natural gas costs only to realize substantial increases in electrical costs due to the need to rely on our BACKUP SOURCE of heating from the Enercon units which do not provide sufficient comfort to residents in all areas of their property.

Finally, upon failure, the Board simply approves replacement of the unit at a cost of some $6000-$8000 plus at the expense of residents. Unfortunately, residents simply remain silent with no objection to this negligence on the part of the Board and management  and unfortunately, patiently wait for their own neglected unit to be the next one to fail. 

Do you not wonder when you hear management and the Board declare at an Annual General Meeting that Enercon units are simply getting old and must be replaced? This is obviously a most lazy excuse for their own negligence and that of management, for not respecting the required regular maintenance as noted above.

This is yet just another important issue that must be addressed at a General Meeting of unit owners in the very near future. It appears however that a meeting would interrupt the Board members winter vacation and not allow them to be available to address such matters until they are back in the spring. Even then, a Board response to important issues and a General Meeting is likely to be rejected by the Board. Responsible residents will not accept such Board rejection and will support the call for a General Meeting as soon as possible. Residents should be reminded that their voting position on any issue can be SUBJECT TO THEIR REQUEST for a POLLED VOTE which means that their voting identity will be kept private to themselves only.

More often than not, the temperature of perimeter heating lines in residential units is warm at best. Therefore no heat is being provided from this perimeter heating line but only from the Enercon units which are intended for supplemental heat only. There is a minimal need for Enercon heat during the winter as perimeter heating is the primary means of heating. Even in their neglected state, Enercons are being used unnessessarily which will of course contribute to their failure.

Wonder why electrical costs have escalated over the past number of years? Yes, our Enercons are being unneccessarily forced to become our primary means of heating which clearly does not provide sufficient heat and comfort to residents as does our perimeter heating which provides appropriate heating, YES, PROPER PERIMITER HEATING CONTROL PROVIDES COMFORT, EVEN  WITHIN six feet of your front windows!. Will residents put up with this clear negligence of their entitled comfort within their condominium, or will they stand up for their own health and safety by DEMANDING the immediate attention AND ACTION of management and the Board to address this very, very serious issue?

The very apparent conflict of interest at Spadina Towers regarding management has resulted in the absence of legitimate monthly management reports which are to be made available to the Board and any interested unit owner as well. The following presentation addresses this very important issue. The Board should ensure that such reports are made available on a monthly basis: See spadinanewscenter.com.

The Board of Spadina Condominium Corporation has numerous conflicts of interests which should be of serious concern to residents. Such concerns include current and past business relationships between board members, yet the Board refuses to submit an acceptable Ethics Disclosure Statement to unit owners which would remove any concerns of unit owners.

A primary conflict of interest exists where Spadina Condominium Corporation refuses to contract INDEPENDENT property management. Currently, our property management is not only owned but is directed by the owner of the commercial units. Residential Board members lack the fortitude to address this issue and simply turn the other way.

The following presentation is intended to provide some recommended address to the major conflicts of interest that exist at Spadina Towers. See spadinanewscenter.com.

The Board of Spadina Condominium Corporation has for some time, as per the recommendation of Tom McClocklin Sr., engaged the legal services of Naheed Bardai of MLT Aikens to represent the Corporation. Unfortunately, Mr. Bardai at the same time, represents the McClocklin’s own personal interests.

Therefore, there is a serious conflict of interest with the Corporation’s interests being represented by the same lawyer representing the biased interests of the McClocklin’s. There are serious liability implications as a result of this unlawful conduct. This conflict of interest and services of Mr. Bardai to the Corporation must cease immediately.

The following podcast explains how such conflicts are in contravention of the law. The podcast may be viewed on spadinanewscenter.com. (User name and password are both SCC).

https://youtu.be/vrpCr-jvPTQ

What was referred to as a Reserve Fund Budget at the October 5, 2017 Annual General Meeting was in fact NOT a Reserve Fund Budget at all. It was rather some very vague commentary on deferred maintenance items. Obviously, little effort was made in obtaining reasonable cost estimates so in turn, residents have been left with no idea as to what funding may be required. The Board has refused to present a legitimate Reserve Fund budget for unit owner approval in most years since 2010 and has unlawfully used cash calls rather than seeking the required unit owner approval of funding by resolution. No such resolutions exist! Yet, millions of dollars have been spent without them.

As a result, a General Meeting will have to be held at some point in the near future to ensure that residents are presented with a formal Reserve Fund Budget based upon much more information including reasonable cost estimates. Only then, will unit owners be in a position to approve such expenditures via formal resolution and a second formal resolution approving appropriate Reserve Fund contributions within our monthly condominium fees as required by our Bylaws.

This is the proper, responsible and legal procedure when dealing with Reserve Fund expenditures, not simply continuing to leave this required process in the hands of the Board which is unlawful. The Board’s insistence to circumvent the proper approval and funding process by declaring illegal and surprise cash calls can no longer be tolerated. The Board has used cash calls to cover up its mismanagement of unit owner funds for a number of years, avoiding the required approvals of unit owners. CASH CALLS ARE NOT NECESSARY WITH RESPONSIBLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT. The legal requirements and procedure are outlined in our Bylaws, Section 10.4 Reserve Funds, Section 10.5 Budgets, and Secion 11.8 Capital Expenditures.

It is well known fact that a number of Spadina Towers condo owners have been severely harmed financially in the sale of their units in recent years due to the required deep discounting of their sale price. The main reason for this as reported by numerous real estate agents, is the poor perception of our building in the marketplace regarding our building’s financial and management practices. No one wants to buy a property when they know they face the uncertainty of when and how much they will be called upon for substantial, unlawfull and surprise cash calls.

It is clear that there has been very little research done by the Board relating to their suggested Reserve Fund expenditures. Some expenditures are not required at all. For example, roof anchors at a suggested cost of $84,000 to $100,000, are not required at all. A simple communication with the appropriate authorities confirms this. Mr. McClocklin clearly mislead his fellow Board members and most residents. What a convenient way for he to avoid contribution to window cleaning for the past three years!

The Reserve Fund expenditures in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, were a fine example of unlawful conduct. They clearly involved illegal and unapproved capital expenditures, including totally altered landscaping with no consultation with residents and no approval by special resolution as is legally required. Exactly the same illegal activity took place recently in the case of Boily vs. Carleton Condominiums where the Board members were held personally liable at substantial cost to them. It appears that a similar remedy will unfortunately have to be pursued at Spadina Towers as well.

Other unapproved Reserve Fund expenditures including Capital expenditures have proceeded this past year with many questions left unanswered. Further, it is required that the Commercial owner refund the Corporation for several thousand dollars in common expenses that they have refused to pay. As well, they have used thousands of dollars of resident funds to pay for their own personal renovations. A resident review of invoices for the past five years is urgently required! The Board has been paranoid of this request! Let’s try to address these and other issues responsibly without seeking remedy in the Courts.

I and others bought a residence at Spadina Towers with the understanding that management and the Board of Directors responsibly conducted the affairs of the Corporation with respect and adherence to our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act. For a number of years, these laws have been widely disregarded by the Board and have cost me and others, thousands of dollars in unnecessary costs. This must come to an end immediately. A recall of the 2017 AGM should be made immediately so that a proper review of the many deficiencies of building affairs can be responsibly addressed and business conducted in a lawful fashion. Until this happens, it will be illegal for the Board to make any attempt to unilaterally approve any Reserve Fund expenditures and the means of funding as well. In other words, NO MORE ILLEGAL CASH CALLS!

Should any Board member or resident be supportive of the unlawful practices of the Board as they relate to the above issues, I would suggest that they be prepared to support their position with direct references to the Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act. The immature and disrespectful conduct including the moaning and groaning by a number of obviously less than competent individuals, clearly demonstrates irresponsible behavior and should be replaced with participation from those residents who are capable of understanding and participating in discussion of the issues.

At the Annual General Meeting held on Thursday, October 5^th, a number of proxies were registered prior to the meeting, but then rejected by the Board,  Our Bylaws provide in:

Section 7.10 Proxies

Every unit owner, first mortgagee, or other person entitled to vote at a meeting of unit owners may appoint a proxyholder, or one or more proxyholders, who need not be unit owners, to attend and act at the meeting in the manner and to the extent authorized and with the authority conferred by the proxy.

Board members sought support for “their position” by obtaining proxies from residents who were obviously misled by the misrepresentations within the ANNUAL AGM REPORT. THOSE PROXIES RECEIVED BOARD RECOGNITION, BUT PROXIES NOT OBTAINED BY BOARD MEMBERS, WERE REFUSED RECOGNITION. Several proxies of unit owners were duly registered prior to the meeting. However, in contravention of the law, including our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act, these proxies provided by several owners were refused recognition and their interests not permitted to be represented at the meeting.

The receptionist at the entrance to the meeting accepted registration of the proxies, however Board members shortly after the registration, refused entry to the proxy holder. Such classic behavior on the part of the Board, is not unusual but certainly reflects and confirms their ongoing illegal and oppressive conduct towards “selected” residents.

Such conduct of course provides reasonable cause for a demand upon the Board to call a legitimate AGM to be conducted abscent of such illegal procedures. This would provide the Board an opportunity to address and correct the misrepresentations within their prepared AGM report, and prepare and present a legitimate Reserve Fund Budget, and seek the required AGM approvals by resolution of unit owners as is required by law.

It is requested that the Board call upon unit owners immediately, to a legitimate AGM to be held within the next thirty days. Should the Board not respect this most reasonable request, a Court application will be made to order the October 5th meeting to be non binding and that a new Annual General Meeting be called as soon as possible..

The Board at the AGM held on Thursday, October 5th, refused to permit Dennis Tofin to attend the meeting. The reason provided for this refusal was that his October 1st condo fees were paid online to Spadina Condominum Corporation just as they have been paid for the past eight years. Canadian auditing guidelines have always recommended that condo fees be made payable to YOUR OWN CORPORATION, and deposited into YOUR OWN CORPORATION’S BANK ACCOUNT. NO COMMINGLING OF FUNDS WITH OTHER CONDO CORPORATIONS!

The Board is even refusing disclosure of our investment account statement which may very well be in the name of a Colliers McClocklin account. It is believed that the Board has used his online payment as a “technical” excuse for preventing Mr. Tofin from addressing the Annual General meeting and revealing comments and special information that the Board DID NOT WANT RESIDENTS TO HEAR.

The Board has become paranoid in recent years to the ongoing revelation of their inappropriate conduct where they have demonstrated many contraventions of our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act. (Refer to previous posts). Board members must be held accountable. Amended financial statements must be provided immediately due to numerous serious misrepresentations including the lack of a legitimate Reserve Fund Budget. Board avoidance of outstanding and concealed commercial owner arrears payable to the Corporation, must also be addressed and disclosed in the financial statements.

Residents were with no surprise, not consulted as required, nor permitted a vote, for illicit landscaping and signage capital expenditures. Many other issues outlined in the previous post REVIEW OF SCC 2017 AGM REPORT must be addressed as well.

The financial statements presented by the Board at the 2017 AGM of Spadina Corporation, included many inaccuracies and misleading information. The following includes comments intended to suggest the many amendments required in order to provide an accurate statement of the Corporation’s financial status…

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION

-Current Assets

1. The $106,500 reimbursed by the commercial owner (Note #8) subsequent to June 30, 2017 was as of June 30^th, an account receivable by the Corporation. It is a current asset and an amendment adding this to current assets is required.

-Current Liabilities

1. As of June 30^th, 2017, an account payable in the amount of $95,175 was not recognized. The obligation for this amount was outstanding as of June 30^th, and should have been included in current liabilities.
2. As of June 30^th, 2017, an account payable representing outstanding commitments “under the contracts” of $168,451 was not recognized in current liabilities as it should have been.

This results in a further amendment to effectively increase current liabilities by $263,626.

3. Note 4 states the $94,927 was expended from the Reserve Fund, yet note 8 advises that $95,175 in “additional expenses” were to be paid out of the Reserve Fund subsequent to year end. A further correction and amendment is required.

3. A further account receivable as of June 30^th requires a further amending adjustment for unpaid contributions by the commercial, as follows:

$5013 Fobs on 4^th floor doors

2360 Bike Racks

1068 Carts

2000 Fobs-door unit #1 (est)

10,442  x .4431 commercial share=  $4626.85 plus $7000 of unit owner funds used to pay for commercial condo renovations as revealed in a resident review of invoices. This equates to $11,625.85 receivable from the commercial owner plus whatever unknown amount is found upon a further review of invoices.

After recognizing the above amendments as per accrual accounting standards, the Reserve Fund balance at June 30th, is actually some $186,101 and NOT the $343,227 reported on the balance sheet. After receiving the account receivable of $11,625 PLUS from the commercial owner, the correct net reserve fund balance would increase accordingly.

ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING PRACTISE is defined as follows: 

A method where revenues are recorded when they are earned, even if money has not yet been received, and expenses when they are incurred, even if payment has not yet been made. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants requires that this method be used so as to yield statements that accurately measure the company’s operations and state of obligation with others. The Board has clearly neglected this required standard practise.

STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS

Expenses which are very troubling within the Statement of Operations, include:

1. Repairs and maintenance

-2013  $54,630

-2014    72,625

-2015    43,059

–2016  101,377

-2017  107,240

Maintenance expense has approximately doubled in the past two years. An explanation from the Board is necessary. What has happened to cause this dramatic increase? With the addition of a “highly efficient” heating system and new elevators, the promised savings in maintenance and energy savings were supposedly to be substantial. Net energy costs continue to escalate substantially, with no “dramatic decrease” as was promised with the new heating system. Further, the new heating system and elevators were to result in a substantial reduction in maintenance costs, yet these failed promises have resulted in a doubling of these costs. Residents of course are entitled to a breakdown of the these excessive repair and maintenance costs.

2. Professional fees:

– Rather than respect their obligations as per Section 10.1 Maintenance and Repair “The Corporation shall keep in a state of good and serviceable repair and property maintain the common property” the Board challenged a claim by Dennis Tofin against the Corporation for refusing to respect this fundamental Bylaw of the Corporation. The claim was for the cost of responsible address of maintenance deficiencies. Rather than make any attempt to settle or arbitrate the claim of $12,000, the Board chose to spend $48,000 in unit owner funds to challenge this very basic claim. The Board refuse to file an insurance claim for these most unreasonable legal costs (charged by the McClocklin’s own lawyer), and chose to simply spend unit owner funds. The question is of course, just why would any responsibly minded party, even consider paying some $48,000 to challenge a claim of $12,000 which could have been settled for even much less through a reasonable negotiation process which was offered to them. The Board refused negotiation and even an arbitration process which could have been conducted at minimal cost! Why did the Appeals Court refuse Spadina of their requested submissions to have all of their legal fees paid? THE COURT RULED THAT DENNIS TOFIN WAS IN FACT NOT RESPONSBILE FOR THESE COSTS! 

3. Site Manager and Caretaker Costs

Caretaker duties have been dramatically reduced over the past few years:

-Contractors have been hired for grounds maintenance

-Contractors have been hired for many mechanical maintenance duties (in unit mechanical and plumbing) no maintenance of Enercons or other in unit mechanical components

-Contractors have been hired for shampooing of hallways (we have shampooing equipment) This duty was conducted by all previous caretakers. Resident requests to the caretaker to shampoo serious hallway carpet stains, have been advised in response, that residents on their floor will have to “chip-in” to pay for the expense of getting their hallway carpet cleaned.

-Contractors have been hired to wash the garage floor. This was previously conducted at least every 60 days by our past caretakers. The current practise of washing only twice per year, has resulted in caking of dirt upon the surface which will now require a very expensive means to remove this.

Residents live in this building and care much more about tracking of this filth into their units versus Commercial tenants who have much less concern, as this is not their home.

-Contractors have been hired for painting of areas that could easily be done by the caretaker

-Contractors have been hired to replace thermostats, zone valves and other “in unit” heating components which could easily be conducted by the caretaker

-Residents have been subjected to unnecessary abuse when requesting assistance for personal “in unit assistance”. Example: a fee of $25 has been demanded of elderly residents to simply hang a framed picture. A payment of $25 to change Enercon filters has also been demanded of residents. This is obviously part of common area maintenance where no fee is at all appropriate..

-Both the caretaker and his wife have actually shouted at residents advising them to return to the vestibule and clean their shoes prior to entering the lobby. They have verbally assaulted a number of residents for various reasons including residents and those helping them in both moving into and out of the building.

-The caretakers have removed resident posts to the lobby bulletin board

-The caretakers have removed the waste basket from the mail box area, as this seems to be an Inconvenience to them and they are not being compensated enough for this major task.

-The caretaker in the past fiscal year, left the building on a Friday afternoon for the weekend, when an elderly resident had a serious drainage line backup. Fellow residents remained present during the visit of the contractor due to the absence of both management and the caretaker.

-The above list can well be extended much further.

-The caretakers wife, has received great appreciation for her efforts and contribution to the annual Christmas party. What residents do not realize, is that she has collected compensation for her “volunteer” efforts, in the amount of $500 plus reimbursement for her most “generous” contribution of her wonderful baking.

-Residents do not realize that the “caretakers” serve a great deal of time serving the commercial owner in the commercial units. The one and only resident review of conducted in 2015, revealed that the couple were compensated by our Corporation for their services provided to the commercial owner. Yet, residents have often been advised by management that the caretaker is not available because he is “too busy with his very important duties”. They receive payment (or do they?) from the commercial owner or have residents been paying for these commercial services in their fees?

-Residents do not realize that the caretaker and his wife are regularly compensated for “extra work” they do in the building. The review of invoices in 2015, revealed numerous invoices made by the caretakers to the Corporation, for which they received payment above and beyond their monthly contractual compensation. Their salary and benefits exceed $80,000 which is obviously ludicrous. On top of this, the commercial owner has a “live in” caretaker available at any time to provide their units with services.

The list goes on and on. Yet, any resident who dares questioning of the Board with concerns related to the caretakers, are immediately informed that they are not entitled to any relevant information.

The current caretaker was hired immediately after Mark Schreiner, our previous caretaker was fired by Colliers McClocklin management. Wendy Larmond was not contracted at the time for just reasons.

Unfortunately, the demands of Colliers upon Mr. Schreiner were well beyond reason.  (He was responsible for acting as building operations engineer at two other condominium properties AT THE SAME TIME and ON 24/7 CALL ON DEMAND BASIS at all properties. Yes, Mr. Schreiner was responsible for several properties 24/7 at $3000 per month. He paid for cleaning at Spadina Towers out of his $3000).

This versus the current $5000 per month plus benefits paid to the Larmonds. And yet, the required duties of the Larmonds have been reduced substantially!

There are qualified candidates available for the caretaker position at Spadina Towers, who would be very interested in a caretaker position with ONE PROPERTY at $3000 per month plus benefits currently provided to the Larmonds. That is a savings of $24,000 per year plus the additional fees that the Larmonds have been charging our Corporation.

RESERVE FUND BUDGET 

Unfortunately, what has been presented as a “RESERVE FUND BUDGET” in the financial statements, is NOT A RESERVE FUND BUDGET AT ALL. First of all, residents must be reminded of just what constitutes a legitimate RESERVE FUND BUDGET.

Section 10.4 Reserve Funds 

1. a) The Corporation shall establish separate reserve funds for the Residential Property and the Commercial Property, providing for the payment of:

1. i) any unforeseen common expenses; and
2. ii) for any major repairs or replacement of common facilities, common property or assets of the Corporation, including roofs, exteriors of buildings, roads, sidewalks, sewer, heating, electrical and plumbing systems, elevators and recreational and parking facilities;
3. b) The amount required for the reserve funds shall be determined by the ordinary vote of the units owners at the annual general meeting, by taking into account anticipated repair and replacement costs and life expectancy of the things mentioned in subsection (a), or as otherwise permitted or directed by the Act. The amount required for the reserve funds shall then be apportioned among the owners in accordance the scheme of apportionment set out in Bylaw No. 3. Owner’s contributions to the reserve funds are then payable in the amounts and at the times as determined by the board.
4. c) The reserve fund which has been designated for the Residential Property shall be used only for the reserve fund expenses allocated to the Residential Owners as set out in Bylaw No. 3. When such application will or may result in a shortfall in the reserve fund for the Residential Property, the board may submit a revised budget or special assessment to the unit owners, and in accordance with Bylaw No. 3, allocate the increase to the Residential Owners.
5. d) The reserve fund which has been designated for the Commercial Property shall be used only for the reserve fund expenses allocated to the Commercial Owner as set out in Bylaw No. 3. When such application will or may result in a shortfall in the reserve fund expenses fund for the Commercial Property, the board may submit a revised budget or special assessment to the unit owners, and in accordance with Bylaw No. 3, allocate the increase to the Commercial Owner.
6. e) In no event shall the unit owners approve an amount required for each of the reserve funds which is less than that required for the anticipated repair and replacement costs and life expectancy of the things mentioned in subsection (a), unless otherwise permitted or directed by the Act. In making their decision, the unit owners may rely upon the recommendation of the board as to the amounts required.

Section 10.5 Budgets

The board shall from time to time and at least annually prepare a budget for the common expenses funds and a budget for the reserve funds, in accordance with Bylaw No. 3, and determine by estimate the amounts necessary for the next ensuing fiscal year or remainder of the current fiscal year, as the case may be. The board shall then submit the reserve funds budget for approval of the unit owners, pursuant to section 10.4(b) above. The board shall advise all unit owners promptly in writing of the amount payable by each of them respectively, and shall deliver copies of each final budget on which such levy is based, to all unit owners shown on the unit register. 

Section 11.8 Capital Expenditures

Where expenditures are contemplated by the Corporation which are for the purpose of improving or adding to the common property, or common facilities, but are not for repair, renovation, maintenance, or replacement of the common property or common facilities, such expenditures may be included in the budget and collected for in the contributions for common expenses, if the same are first approved by a special resolution of unit owners and first mortgagees or other persons entitled to vote.

The Board has blatantly disregarded the above Bylaws and proceeded at their own discretion, approval of expenditures and their means of funding without the required consent of unit owners. This is obviously illegal conduct on the part of the Board.

The following are comments responding to what has been presented as a “Reserve Fund Budget”. This presentation is OBVIOUSLY NOT A LEGITIMATE RESERVE FUND BUDGET AT ALL but simply some general commentary on THOSE RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES, THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED IN A FORMAL RESERVE FUND BUDGET. 

ROOF ANCHORS– Current regulations and legislation, including that of the Section 116.3 Anchor Points and Anchor Plates, clearly provides AS IT HAS FOR MANY YEARS, that,

1. Where a worker uses a personal fall arrest system or a travel restraint system, an employer, contractor or owner shall ensure that an anchor point or anchor plate that meets the requirements of this section is used as part of that system.
2. As an employee, contractor or owner shall ensure that a temporary anchor point used in a travel restraint system (meets the required conditions of the ACT)

There are currently no legal requirements beyond what is clearly expressed in the Occupational Health and Safety Act as outlined above. Why is the Commercial Owner insisting that residents be deprived of common area window cleaning and address of leakage of windows at the same time?

REINSULATE and REPLACE MATERIAL ABOVE BALCONY DOORS AND WINDOWS- An accurate assessment of the necessary work and quoted pricing to conduct this work must be obtained and presented to unit owners for their approval.

BALCONY SUPPORTS- Again, a detailed assessment of this project is required including quoted pricing and presented to a General Meeting for unit owner approval.

POOL DECK and CONCRETE-detailed assessment including quoted pricing is required     

REDECORATION OF RESIDENTIAL COMMON AREAS-The last project was for the hallway carpets. It has been a disaster. Qualified comments have questioned why residents would have ever approved of such a carpet, obviously not intended for common hallway use. Project #1 unfortunately requires replacement of the current carpeting. No further hallway improvements should be permitted by residents until such time as the carpet has been replaced. 

RESIDENTIAL HALLWAY AIR CONDITIONING AND CHILLER 

Detailed assessment of this project is required including quoted pricing. As with any such CAPITAL EXPENDITURE (capital repair, addition or replacement as defined by law), unit resident consultation is mandatory. Resident interests require that the previously well functioning residential humidifier be installed. No commercial owner objection is appropriate. 

EXTERIOR CAULKING 

Caulking was done less than ten years ago. The north and west side of the building is most is most susceptible to caulking failure. At present, there have only been reports of leakage to a few residential units on these sides of the building. Repair to the currently leaking windows can easily be addressed with window caulking when our windows are being cleaned. The Board has prevented address to this problem, with the false position that window cleaning and window leakage repair cannot be completed until roof anchors are installed. This Board position has been proven to be false and misleading.

HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT

1. Completed plaza -Where is structural damage? With no evidence, we have wasted some $700,000, that could have been saved following a well respected professional’s submission of a $50,000 remedy.
2. Front landscaping-This is a capital expenditure that requires approval of unit owners via special resolution. No such approval was ever sought. Board members face liability for this illicit conduct. Board members are advised to review the Boily case vs. Carleton Condominium Corporation. This matter will be pursued.
3. Parkade vestibule and stairwells have been redecorated. A copy of tenders for this project is requested. The ludicrous estimate provided, must not be accepted by residents. Residents must be consulted.
4. Parkade power wash- Residents are deserving of much better. This is primarily a residential builing where clean floors demand a much greater standard than commercial tenants.
5. Sewer line replaced. Why is a common area sewer line shared with the commercial units attended to where residential sewer lines are neglected?
6. New building signage. A motion was passed at an AGM in 2014 approving new building signage identifying the building as Spadina Towers. Residents were to be consulted and participate prior to any final decision.The Board however falsely declared the motion was defeated as per an audio recording of the meeting. The required unit owner approval of the signage expenditure currently being installed, was not permitted. This is in contravention of our Bylaws.

TENDERS ARE AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY PARTICULARLY WHEN OUR CORPORATION’S FINANCES ARE IN A VERY PRECARIOUS POSTION AND SPENDING PRACTISES ARE OUT OF CONTROL!

Requests of residents for disclosure of tender documents have constantly been rejected by our Board. Requests have been made to the Board for copies of tender submissions for recent CAPITAL projects, including the elevators and parkade CAPITAL PROJECTS. A copy of any tender documents are hereby requested of the Board..

The Board is hereby advised that in response to their insistence that all CAPITAL EXPENDITURES referenced in our Corporations financial reports be declared as OPERATING EXPENSES, by doing so, they are obviously misrepresenting legally required financial reporting requirements that are explicitly required in Canadian Auditing Standards.

    REQUESTS TO THE BOARD

1. The Board has made the statement that “THE ORGANIZATION has approved a $950,000 cash call”. The Board is hereby requested to inform residents in writing as to WHO is in fact “THE ORGANIZATION”? NO RESIDENTS have participated in any such ‘ORGANIZATION APPROVAL” Obviously, this clearly demonstrates a most serious contravention of both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act on the part of the Board.

3. The Board is requested to provide written confirmation to the writer, of all past tender and invoice documents for all ‘CAPITAL REPAIRS”  or ‘CAPITAL EXPENDITURES” including those for the elevator, the parkade, and any other such projects. 

4. Please provide written authorization to enable, myself and/or other interested residents,to their entitled access and review of all invoices and other source documents including those previously reviewed by myself in early 2015 AND in addition, all invoices and other source documents, prepared subsequent to that review.

The motions proposed to amend our Corporation’s Bylaws, are most obviously, very shocking and well beyond reason in the minds of those residents who have any respect for common moral and ethical behavior. It is obvious that the intent of these motions is to attack and denigrate the integrity of myself, Dennis Tofin. I will never accept any criticism for my revelations of factual illicit conduct and disrespect for the law by our Board of Directors.

It is unfortunate that some residents, who may not understand or appreciate the laws established to ensure responsible governance of our Corporation, have failed to appreciate the vast extent of many breaches of conduct by our Board in respect to these governing laws.

Such breaches on the part of our Board, of both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act, are  well deserving of address. Most unfortunately, some of our residents prefer to rather than contribute to responsible address of these issues, choose to turn the other way rather than respect and seek an understanding of the facts surrounding such illicit conduct.

I personally, will not condone the clear disrespect of our Board for their failed adherence to the laws which govern all unit owners. I will continue as long as I reside in this building, to express my opinion and reveal the facts as they relate to any such conduct that disrespects residents and contravenes our laws.

Our Board has in recent years, IN FULL CONTRAVENTION OF OUR BYLAWS, spent well over one million dollars of owner funds, which was not legally approved by unit owners as per the provisions of our bylaws, but was in fact funded with illicit CASH CALLS with approval not by unit owners, but by the BOARD ONLY.

Residents, who have accepted without question, lacking and misleading information, have been assessed in the past few years, in contravention of our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act, with illegitimate (as per our Bylaws) CASH CALLS, for this one million dollar plus boondoggle. Now residents as of the 2017 AGM, are being further subjected to the Board’s continuing demands for further illicit cash calls. This has left our Corporation in a very troubling and precarious financial position today and going forward.

The required amendment to our financial statements will reflect a Reserve Fund balance of approximately $175,000 versus the reported $343,227. How could there be such a major and misleading discrepancy in our financial statements? The same discrepancy occurred in the 2016 financial report as well! These are major and very troubling discrepancies!  Just how long will residents remain silent when is they who pay for this illicit reporting of residents funds!

A further General Meeting must be held in the near future to address the many issues which cannot be addressed with the usual rush to adjournment by the Board. If residents deem themselves to be morally, ethically and financial responsible individuals, they will demand that the Corporation cease such illicit activity and withdraw these most disrespectful motions which are clearly intended to silence any opposing voice in support of democracy.

I respectfully submit that this report along with my response to the Dielschneider motion, be accepted and reported in the 2017 AGM minutes, as was the Dielschnieder motion included in the minutes of the 2016 AGM.

Lien Revenues SCC 2017 AGM

MOTION 3

“No Residential unit shall be rented without the Board approving the length of term of the lease or rental agreement. For greater certainty, the Board shall not approve leases or rental agreements with a term of less than six (6) months”.

Our current Bylaws 12.10 Tenants and Occupiers

1. a) No owner of a residential unit shall rent the unit until the unit owner has given written notice to the Corporation of the owner’s intention to rent the unit, setting out the address at which the owner may be served with a notice pursuant to the Act. Such owner shall then give written notice of the name of the tenant within 20 days after the beginning of the tenancy, and written notice that the unit is no longer rented within 20 days after the end of the tenancy.
2. b) A unit owner who leases or grants possession of a unit which is not a residential unit, to any tenant or occupier shall:
3. i) cause the tenant or occupier to undertake in writing to be bound by and comply with the bylaws of the Corporation; and
4. ii) give notice to the Corporation of the tenancy or the occupancy accompanied by the written undertaking of the tenant, tenants, or occupiers to be bound by the bylaws of the Corporation; provided that nothing herein shall in any way remove, waive or alter the responsibility of each such owner for the performance of all bylaws for all persons using or occupying his, her, or its unit

QUESTIONS:

1. Why does the Board feel they must approve the length of RESIDENTIAL unit lease or rental agreements?
2. What time period is being proposed for response to any such request for Board approval?
3. Why are any such proposed conditions not being required of commercial unit lease or rental agreements?
4. Has the commercial owner complied with Bylaw 12.10 b)(ii) Tenants and Occupiers, during their ownership? The Corporation (consisting of both residents and the commercial owner), must be provided with the notice of any tenancy and their required written undertaking as per Bylaw 12.10 b)(ii). It appears that no such compliance has ever been demonstrated. Will the commercial owner, now demonstrate compliance with this Bylaw?

Our current Bylaws appear to be working well in this regard (with exception to the non-compliance of #4). There is therefore no need to support any such motion at this time and certainly not until good reason for an amendment can be demonstrated along with compliance of the commercial owner to Bylaw 12.10.

MOTION 2

“A unit owner shall not do, permit to be done, or assist another unit owner to do any act or thing which causes the Corporation damage, additional cost, or increased cost. Any such damage, additional cost, or increased cost shall be the personal liability of such unit owners and shall be assessed against the unit owner and may be recovered by the Corporation under these Bylaws and/or the Act”.

It is rather unfortunate, that the Board fails to appreciate, that the sought measures of their motion, are basically addressed within the Bylaws of the Corporation which read as follows:

• Section 11.11 Enforcement of Bylaws In the event of any violation of the provisions of the Act or these bylaws by the owner, either by his or her own conduct or by the conduct of any other occupant of his or her unit: a) The Corporation or its agents have all of the rights and remedies which may be provided for in the Act, or these bylaws, or which may be available at law or in equity, and may and is authorized to prosecute an action or other proceedings against such defaulting owner, tenant and/or occupants for damages, injunction, specific performance, or for judgment for payment of money and collection thereof, or for a penalty as provided for by s. 99 of the Act, or for any combination of remedies, or for such other relief. The owner, on behalf of himself or herself, the tenant or other occupant, shall additionally be liable to pay to the Corporation all expenses incurred in connection with any such actions or proceedings, including court costs, the costs of solicitor’s fees on the basis as between a solicitor and his client, and any other fees and expenses.
• Enforcement of bylaws 99(1) If an owner, tenant or other person who resides in or on a unit contravenes a bylaw of the corporation, the corporation may take proceedings pursuant to The Small Claims Act, 1997 to recover from the owner, tenant or other person or any combination of them: (a) a penalty of not more than $500 with respect to that contravention; and (b) subject to the limits in The Small Claims Act, 1997: (i) compensation for any damage to the common property, common facilities or services units resulting from the contravention of the bylaw up to the deductible limit of the insurance policy obtained by the corporation; and (ii) any actual costs incurred by the corporation to enforce the bylaw against the defendant.

The only part of the motion that is not currently addressed in our Bylaws as noted above, is the part of the motion that states “A unit owner shall not do, permit to be done, or assist another unit owner to do any act or thing which causes the Corporation damage, additional cost, or increased cost”.

Specifically, what problem is the Board attempting to resolve by proposing an amendment to the Bylaws?

It is apparent that the intent of this motion is to discourage any concerned resident from considering questioning any action of the Board and further, to dictate and authorize prosecution of ANY SUCH  RESIDENT who dares to provide assistance to a fellow resident, where the commercial owner and Board object to such assistance. No resident should consider supporting such draconian and undemocratic measures. VOTE NO!

MOTION 1                                                                        2017-09-28

“All unit holders shall make payments in a manner approved by the Board. For greater certainty, the Board shall not recognize payments made by direct deposit to the Corporation’s bank account”.

Residents have unfortunately not been informed of matters of fact related to this issue:

• Spadina Condominium Corporation had for some 20 years, commencing in 1977, respected Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Canadian condominium accounting guidlines, by using two separate bank accounts, both of course in the name of SPADINA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION. One bank account was for the Operating Fund and another for the Reserve Fund.
• The following are general accepted guidelines for condominium corporations:
• The corporation must have at least two bank accounts, one designated as an operating account and one as a reserve account.
• Bank accounts must be solely in the name of the Corporation
• Unit owners since 1977, were provided with assurance that THEIR MONEY was being deposited into their OWN SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT in the name of their Corporation, with no COMMINGLING OF THEIR FUNDS with other condominium corporations.

1. However, the Board has permitted the commercial owner’s property management company to ignore responsible and generally accepted guidelines, which has in turn resulted in unit owner funds being deposited in the bank account of the commercial owner’s management company. at How much are we paying for a commingled account shared with many others, versus the fees paid for our Spadina Corporation private account which is not being permitted for use! I would ask, WHAT RESIDENT WOULD NOT SEEK ADDRESS OF EACH OF THESE CLAIMS?

• Residents have therefore lost the assurance of security of their funds in their own private bank account under the name of Spadina Condominium Corporation. Their funds are now deposited into the BANK ACCOUNT of a McClocklin owned company.
• This McClocklin owned company, combines OUR RESIDENT FUNDS with many “other parties”. This is referred to as “commingling of funds” and of course opens exposure to liability. If one of these “other parties” becomes subject to a legal finding of liability, our resident funds obviously become subject to the resulting shared liability exposure.
• Our Auditor for many years, DELOITTE, advised our Board, that McClocklin’s insisted change to using a single COMMINGLED BANK ACCOUNT, would definately result in much more time spent by the Auditor resulting in a much higher audit fee. Deloitte’s review of this COMMINGLED ACCOUNT, took substantially more audit time than what had previously been taken when we had for many years, used our own two bank accounts in the name of our own Corporation. Residents should simply request of the Board, a copy of the commingled bank account statement from the bank, where resident funds are deposited. You will in turn, be truly enlightened as to why this is a very troubling matter.

Residents do not realize that our Board approved the return to a segregated bank account in 2009 in the name of Spadina Condominium Corporation. I personally have made direct online payments to this account since that time, fully knowing where my funds were at. These payments have been made very efficiently via online transfers which are more cost efficient than the current arrangement demanded by Colliers. It is apparent that McClocklin’s wish to have total control of resident funds by insisting upon resident deposits into their own bank account. Knowledgable residents will appreciate these facts and VOTE NO!

In his motion presented to the 2016 AGM, Peter Dielschneider imposed the following condition upon Dennis Tofin: “that he stop writing abusive letters, or indeed any letters, to the board or to any board member”. The following is a summary of the subject matter of each of the written communications made to the board by Dennis Tofin. They were made in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016.

1. Preparation and discharge liens ($315.00 + 115.50=$430.50)(Colliers 70.00 Karen 105.00) (Colliers 40.00) (Karen 60.00) Cost to register lien $60.00-430.50=370.50 profit
2. 2015-10-15 Elevators-capital expenditure, no vote but a cash call
3. Rejection of resident funds being transferred “directly” into Corporation’s bank account
4. Lack of heat in perimeter heating lines
5. Inquiry as to the board promised “town hall meetings”
6. Electrical energy costs (actual city billings) net increase in energy costs.
7. Board-Reserve fund “of little advantage to us, no fixed function, unnecessary” Request for Brunsden to present study (Refused to permit Brunsden to present study)
8. Caretaker performance and disrespect of residents (i.e. Caretaker paid $500 plus extra for food-Xmas party)
9. Caustic leakage and stains on vehicles in my parking stall
10. Reserve fund budget- none/no approval
11. Lehrer issues (neglect of maintenance including Enercons and drainage lines)
12. Mechanical inspection requests
13. Window cleaning and leakage repair request (but commercial windows cleaned)
14. Preventive maintenance and neglect-drainage lines below unit boundaries
15. Accounting and allocation discrepancies
16. Request review of invoices ($30,000 plus in illegitimate allocations) $7,000 in commercial renovations

The Board advised me to contact McClocklin Group of Companies regarding several of the above issues. My response was of course, why would any such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the McClocklin Group of Companies and not the Board?  This clearly demonstrates a very serious and illicit conflict of interest!

Any resident has the right to communicate with the Board about condominium issues without being   subjected to any direction of the McCLOCKLIN GROUP OF COMPANIES! Requests for an explanation from the Board as to this illicit conduct, have of course been rejected!

Contrary to Mr. Dieschneider’s allegation of “daily” letters sent to the Board, which is blatantly untrue, only the above pertinent matters were communicated in writing to the Board. Any resident providing written inquiries, complaints or suggestions to the Board should certainly be entitled to receive a reasonable response from the Board. Only responses of illegitimate excuse for their illicit behavior has been received. The Board continues to provide no reasonable address to the above.

Submitted by Dennis Tofin

At the 2016 AGM, Peter Dielschneider made a motion effectively denying Dennis Tofin the right to maintain a website, to publish a newsletter, or communicate with our Board or access to any judicial process on the threat of being subjected to all the costs.

I respectfully state to Mr. Dielschneider, the Board and any others who may have supported this motion, that the conditions contained in the motion are in direct contravention of my fundamental rights under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. The Code states as per Section:

4. Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to freedom of conscience, opinion and belief and freedom of religious association, teaching, practice and worship.

5. Every person and every class of persons shall, under the law, enjoy the right to freedom of expression through all means of communication, including without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the arts, speech, the press or radio, television or any other broadcasting device.

6. Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to peaceable assembly with others and to form with others associations of any character under the law.

Further, no person(s) shall disrespect my rights as per the fundamental values of, the freedom of thought, opinion and expression as provided in the Constitution Act and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 24(1) of the CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982, provides that “Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances”.
Spadinanewscenter.com is a secured web site that was established in 2013 to provide a centralized information and communication center for the benefit of Spadina residents. It is only accessible with a user name and password. Visiting this secured site is totally at the option of any resident who wishes to be kept informed. Thousands of such sites exist among condo associations in North America. Such sites provide a one stop communications hub for the benefit of owners. Many financial and relevant association documents can be maintained and easily accessed on the site (User name and password both SCC). The site is available to inform residents of association activities, concerns or issues expressed by fellow residents, educational segments as well as management and Board input, should they wish to contribute.
I have observed and personally experienced over the past several years, that our Board of directors upon receiving from residents any form of inquiry, complaint or suggestion, choses to ignore, harass, threaten or refuse these residents of services. This user friendly website provides a medium for expression of democratic expression of owner issues and ideas along with an opportunity to provide factual information for the benefit of all owners.

I have received many calls from residents over the years seeking clarity of many issues, particularly those regarding finances. The common questions include: why are we not informed throughout the year of our Reserve Fund status? Why have we not been asked to approve both the Reserve Fund expenditures with as well, approval of the means of funding (as is explicitly required by our Bylaws and the Act)? Further, why are we as residents paying for commercial unit renovations and other commercial unit expenses, along with many other very pertinent questions. Spadinanewscenter has addressed this concealment of information by the Board with fact based and informative articles in response. Residents should NOT SIMPLY DEMONSTRATE ACQUIESCENCE and SILENCE TO THEIR OWN RIGHTS AND INTERESTS.  

A Good Board:

1. Communicates with owners and residents on a regular basis, explains its decisions, openly discusses problems and victories, has a policy of transparency and truthfulnes. Postings on bulletin boards accessible to all residents are key in this respect. Information meetings may take place occasionally.
2. Addresses residents’ legitimate complaints/concerns/requests and respects useful suggestions.

Lack of communication and disregard for owners and condo assets are at the root of most condo problems. It’s the main red flag and it is reflected below in many problems in the section on what constitutes a “bad” board.

3. Follows and enforces condo rules consistently and for everyone: Board members have to follow rules themselves if they expect others to follow them and should not show favouritism.
4. Exercises due diligence regarding contracts for repairs, maintenance, and staffing. In other words, a good board seeks tenders. When maintenance problems arise, a good board not only seeks advice from non-interested parties (to avoid conflicts of interest), but  also asks if there is a better and less expensive solution than the one suggested by contractors. (Click here for Issues of Fraud, Kickbacks and Conflict of Interest for problems raised by readers.)
5. Is constituted of members who have no axe to grind or a vested interest or a personal agenda.
6. Always respects a condo’s finances, assets, and owners’ monies.
7. Makes certain that the premises are well maintained and that the staff is competent and hard working.

A Bad Board:

1. Rarely communicates with owners on substantive issues and prefers to inform them as little as possible. This seems to be a key ingredient in a lowered quality of life in condos and is reflected in the many other problems that seem to accompany this issue.
2. Responds dismissively or angrily when owners justifiably complain to them about problems (such as noise and broken rules) and lack of services (such repairs, cleanliness, garbage, recycling, and odours) or unnecessary expenditures.
3. Or, yet, simply ignores owners’ concerns.
4. Threatens owners with legal action when they complain justifiably or make suggestions; or yet when owners complain about management, staff, and contractors. (See new letters in Abuse of Legal Letters and Liens)
5. Mistreats, harasses, threatens, or refuses services to owners who have justifiably complained or made useful suggestions.
6. Rubberstamps decisions made by the manager, administrator, superintendent or contractors without independently studying the issue. Does not get quotes for projects or services. (See the new section on Misuse of Funds and Fraud)
7. Spends monies for upgrades just to suit themselves, contractors, or managers. Refuses owners’ requests to view corporation records and documents.
8. Does not supervise manager and staff sufficiently. As a result, the work and services may be of lower quality or very little work may be accomplished. Or, yet, the staff is actually the power in the condo.
9. Forms a clique, often with management, against owners, and fails to understand that a board represents owners and not themselves nor the management/staff.

The commercial owner has refused to pay thousands of dollars in outstanding amounts they owe to the Spadina Condominium Corporation. Further, they have rejected all requests for a review of invoices following a resident review of 2014 invoices where some $30,000 in inappropriate expenses were either paid or submited for payment at the time. Thousands more in illicit or inappropriate expenses since that review are suspected.

Subsequent to that review, the commercial owner refused to pay their share of Reserve Fund expenditures as are outlined below. Obviously, a further resident review is urgently required.

1. Fob access installation 4^th floor            $ 5,013
2. Bike racks                                                2,360
3. Carts                                                        1,069
4. Fob access front door (unit #1) (est)        2,000

Invoice to be provided                                   $10,442

$10,442 x 44.31% =  commercial share     $ 4,626.85

Commercial tenant improvements paid by    7,000.00

Spadina (Nickel invoice-additional heating lines

for new tenant) est.                                     $11,625.85   Due from commercial owner            The commercial owner is responsible for payment of the above including interest as per the following Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act:

BYLAW NO. 3 (vii) 44.31% of the common expenses and all other reserve fund expenses relating to the common room, hallway, kitchen, bedroom, exercise room, washrooms, shower, sauna, and pool area as shown on Level 4 of the Condominium Plan, other than for decorating, furnishings or exercise equipment 

BYLAW NO.3 (xi) 44.31% of all other common expenses and reserve fund expenses not otherwise allocated 

BYLAW NO.1 (10.3)(d) The common expenses fund which has been designated for the Commercial Property shall be used only for the common expenses allocated to the Commercial Owner as set out in Bylaw No.3. 

CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY ACT 59(1) A contribution that is required to be made by an owner to a reserve fund or a common expense fund and that remains unpaid on its due date is to bear interest, calculated for the period commencing on the due date and ending on the day of payment, at a rate fixed from time to time by special resolution.  

It is time that residents act and address a most serious matter which is obviously of out of control at Spadina Towers.

For those residents who have conducted a thorough review of financial reports since Colliers McClocklin Property Management was contracted to manage our property, they would have unfortunately discovered that responsible building operations and financial accountability have seriously deteriorated. Residents of Spadina Towers have been forced to pay for this mismanagement and the numerous projects demanded by the commercial owner for their exclusive benefit. In the meantime, residents have now been subjected to the following:

1. Removal of residential humidification. The building operations committee was very untruthful about this removal and falsely stated that the “engineer advised that humidification was not necessary”. Evidence from a recording of a meeting with the engineer, disclosed that the “operations committee” (Tom McClocklin Sr.) requested removal of humidification in order to save on the cost of the new hot water heating system. Residents were at no time advised of the removal.
2. Failure to repair leaking windows. The Board has failed to respond to resident complaints regarding leaking windows which continue to damage their interiors.
3. Failure to repair balconies. The Board has for MANY YEARS, made no attempt to address resident’s complaints about concerns over failed and material damage to the surface, walls and adjacent window to balconies, which are very much a severe potential liability and risk to residents below who may be subject to falling debris. The Board has failed to respond to this matter in any way.
4. Board refusal to permit resident review of invoices and relevant source documents. Residents are entitled to verification of where their money is being spent. Just what does the Board have to hide? A great deal is suspected.

5. Reduced caretaker services to residents. It has now become very obvious that the caretaker’s duties and resident services have been substantially reduced, with no corresponding reduction to compensation. Residents are entitled to a review of the caretaker contract and as well, input into its renewal. A previous review of invoices for the calender year 2014, clearly demonstrates that the caretaker has been providing services to the commercial units at the expense of residents. Further, the caretaker’s have submitted to management, invoices for services which are clearly part of their paid services under their contract. We now have minimal cleaning of the garage floors, residential hallways, etc.. Residents are being disrespected while the Board tends to Commercial owner interests.

6. Refusal of mechanical maintenance within residential units: Over the past ten years, NO REGULAR INSPECTION OR MAINTENANCE HAS BEEN CONDUCTED WITHIN RESIDENTIAL UNITS. This has of course resulted in many costly mechanical failures of ENERCON heating and air conditioning units within residential units.
7. Unapproved landscaping. Many residents were rather shocked to see the major and material changes that have been made to the landscaping at Spadina Towers during 2017. No more lawn and no more flowers. Our building is primarily a residential property, yet you would no longer know it. None of this work was presented to unit owners for their approval as is required by both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act. Again, it has been reported that these material changes have been demanded by the commercial owner. Unfortunately, it appears that our resident Board members have simply once again, bowed to the wishes of the commercial owner interests. Residents require Board representation that provides clear representation of their interests and not their ongoing clear representation of commercial Board member wishes.

There are many other items that can be added to this list. Please refer to the post of July 7th, 2017 at spadinanewscenter.com. As a result of Board rejection of the required approval process of building expenditures, Spadina Towers has for some time, continued to have the highest monthly condo fees in not only Saskatoon, but in Saskatchewan. Further, it reportedly has the highest level of UNAPPROVED RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES IN the province as well (THE INFAMOUS SPADINA CASH CALLS). Take a look at the following comparison of condo fees:

SPADINA TOWERS – Monthly condo fees (01 units)  1800 sq. ft.        $1,031.00                

WILLOWS-Cartwright Street- Monthly condo fees       1900 sq. ft             729.00                                                                                                   $ 302.00 more paid per month by Spadina Residents

• YES! WE PAY $302 PER MONTH X 12= $3624/ A YEAR MORE THAN OUR FRIENDS WITH SIMILAR AMENITIES! 41% MORE! PLUS many thousands more in CASH CALLS!

The totally unreasonable condo fees include many unnecessary costs upon residents, yet the Board adamantly rejects resident requests to review these expenditures and invoices. The only review permitted was a review of 2014 invoices where more than $30,000 in illegitimate expenditures were revealed. Such expenditures included thousands of dollars in COMMERCIAL OWNER renovations, caretaker service to the COMMERCIAL UNITS, ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO the caretakers for services already included in their regular duties, etc.

The Board is clearly in avoidance of any further revelations of illicit conduct such as that revealed in the 2014 review of invoices. Residents must seriously ask themselves if such conduct is acceptable to them or should they act responsibly and demand of the Board, address of the 2014 irregularities along with a review of invoices following December 31^st, 2014.

Finally, the Board has recently inferred that they intend to demand even more money from residents in the current year for the Reserve Fund. What happened to the Board’s advisory at the 2016 AGM that they in fact collected larger cash calls than necessary and the option remained open to return these funds to residents? It appears now that the Board has spent much of that money without the required approval of unit owners and will be asking for more.

As residents were recently advised, the Board intends to establish new Bylaws intended to subject residents to new Board powers which extend far beyond those within our current Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act. Their proposed Bylaw amendment to Section 12.6 is already more than sufficiently addressed in our Bylaw Section 11.11 and the Condominium Property Act Section 99, both addressing Enforcement of Bylaws.

The Board as well, intends to further subject residents to new powers which prevent residents from the use and convenience of online banking to make payments to the Corporation, while the Board and management are on the other hand able to use online banking for their sole benefit.

These proposed Bylaw changes reflect the ulterior motive of the owner of management and the Board, in further empowering themselves with their thirst for ever increasing autocratic control over residential interests. Such acts can only be found within Nazi or Communist doctrine.

SPADINA NEWS CENTER – Dennis M. Tofin

*This report may be viewed online at spadinanewscenter.com (both username and password are the capital letters SCC)                                          

Residents are advised that comments relating to a SCC fiscal 2017 year end review, are available on spadinanewscenter.com. Both the log-in user name and password required to access the site are the letters SCC.

Given the contents of this review and as well, the obvious CAPITAL expenditures in front of our building conducted without the required approval of unit owners, there is good reason for residents to be alarmed about how their money is being spent.

With unneccessary and unapproved withdrawals of funds taken from OUR RESIDENTS RESERVE FUND, it appears we are back on track for FURTHER CASH CALLS, to make up for these YET AGAIN, UNAPPROVED CAPITAL EXPENDITURES using our residential reserve funds for COMMERCIAL OWNER EXPENDITURES.

Residents are encouraged to speak up once and for all in objection to these ongoing autocratic governance practises of the Corporation. Once again, should any resident condone and speak in support of such practises, please be prepared to support your position with references to both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act.

spadinanewscenter.com – Dennis M. Tofin

The following issues remain unaddressed by both management and the Board of Directors. It is once again requested that the Board ensure these matters are responsibly addressed to residents prior to the 2017 Annual General Meeting:

1. Given the great many concerns relating to unit owner monthly fees and special assessments, I am requesting that all financial source documents are made available for review by interested residents. Such documents include all contracts with vendors including the property manager and caretaker. In particular, all purchase orders and invoices paid in the current fiscal year along with outstanding obligations as of June 30^th are requested for review by August 15^th, 2017.

2. Given the substantial dollar amount of inappropriate and illicit expenditures revealed in a review of the 2014 invoices, it clearly requires that all source documents as mentioned above, be subject to this resident review.

3. In the past several years, maintenance to residential units has not been conducted as is required by both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act. This neglect includes the following:

• Annual inspections and service maintenance to heating and cooling equipment in each residential unit which has been neglected for a number of years. This includes regular maintenance to Enercons including regular filter inspection and recommended annual lubrication. Lack of such responsible maintenance and inspection has resulted in unnecessary thousands of dollars in major repair and replacement costs which has contributed to our very excessive monthly condo fees.
• Annual inspections and service maintenance to our heating and ventilation components. Zone valves are not inspected at least annually, resulting in valve failure and expensive replacement versus preventive maintenance procedures. It has been more than a decade since any inspection of the common area ventilation ducts servicing residential units has been conducted.
• The Board unnecessarily incurred at the expense of residents, a paid interpretation (at the commercial owners demands) of common area boundaries relating to windows and doors. No such expenditure was necessary, as our Registered Plan CLEARLY defines these boundaries. The cost of fobs for the front door to the commercial unit was shared with a 55.69% contribution by residents. This expense is the sole responsibility of the commercial owner as per our Bylaws and Registered Plan. There has been no demonstration of improved security with fobs and IN FACT, more security breaches have occurred since the fob installation than in the prior 38 year history of the building. The fobs were clearly a convenience for commercial tenants and nothing more. Residents of course paid for most of it. Why the silence of residents and particularly residential Board members! All that is required for someone off the street to enter the parkade at any time during the day, is to simply enter the front COMMERCIAL entrance, and immediately proceed to the entry door within the commercial unit to the garage stairwell. No such entry is possible through the residential entrance WITH EITHER FOBS OR A KEY. The decision to FOB the doors on the fourth floor common areas again lacked any reasonable and common sense thought, resulting in an unnecessary cost of some $5000, ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF RESIDENTS.  Residents were silent and allowed the commercial owner to refuse to pay its proportunate share of this and the “to be shared residential costs” of relevant Reserve Fund expenses in fiscal 2016 as is required by our Bylaws and the Registered Plan. This commercial cost share obligation remains unpaid and outstanding as of June 30, 2017.
• The Board continues to permit the commercial owner to reject support for maintenance, repair and replacement of our residential intercom and security system as required by our Bylaws. This includes an intregal part of this system, the in unit monitors which are clearly demonstrated as a common area component within our Registered Building Plan. Again, this is a clear demonstration on the part of the commercial owner, that such legally entitled residential services are to be discontinued.
• Residential Board Members continue to permit the commercial owner to reject yet another LEGALLY ENTITLED RESIDENTIAL SERVICE, that being exterior cleaning of residential windows as is required by our Bylaws and the building’s Registered Plan. As of July 10th, 2017, residential windows remain uncleaned for three consecutive years. The front windows of the commercial units have however been cleaned during this period. The Board apparently has fallen for the commercial owner’s untruthful statement that roof anchors are required before residential windows can be cleaned. THIS IS AN INTENTIONAL FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENT demonstrating yet again, a further effort to minimize residential services, yet residents and their Board representation go along with this contravention of our Bylaws. Local contractors are prepared to clean our windows given reasonable notice and with their fully confirmed and accredited professional equipment, THEY DO MEET ALL REQUIRED STANDARDS OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY. Resident Board members, must not simply believe everything the commercial owner says, but start making a little more effort in researching the facts, and inform the commercial owner that this is simply yet another measure dictated by them, in order to reduce resident services and in turn reduce their costs.
• The garage floor has been neglected to the extent that the floor is now permanently caked with soil brought in by vehicles, the vast majority from commercial tenants. For many years, this was prevented by caretaker cleaning every couple of months, not simply twice a year as is the case now. Garage floor cleaning has been added to a long list of caretaker duties that are no longer required of them. It seems the Board forgets that this is primarily a residential building and acceptable resident standards require much more regular cleaning. It certainly doesn’t help that the choice of residential carpets clearly enhances the demonstration of the filth being tracked into the hallways and in turn into resident units. Many residential hallway carpets continue to be absolutely filthy and totally unacceptable to reasonable residential standards. Regular shampooing of these carpets by the caretaker many years ago, has been rejected by the current caretakers and as a result the carpets remain filthy for most of the year until such time as a CONTRACTED CARPET CLEANER is brought in to complete this DUTY OF THE CARETAKER. This as yet a further additional but unnecesssary expense to residents. 
• Again, COMMON AREAS have been most unduly impacted by the commercial owner. The most unduly influenced Board, has gone far beyond its mandate with unnecessary and unapproved expenditures on the front patio. A new concrete walk up is totally unnecessary and is clearly for the benefit of the commercial owner. Further, Residents voted at the 2013 AGM in favour providing effective visual signage to IDENTIFY THE BUILDING as “SPADINA TOWERS”. A review of the voting record for this motion clearly demonstrated the wishes of unit owners. Objection to the resolution at the meeting, obviously demonstrated that the commercial owner does not want to see the building recognized as SPADINA TOWERS, AS WAS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION AT THE MEETING. “I hereby move that signage identifying this building, commonly known as SPADINA TOWERS, to be installed within 90 days to enhance and provide recognition and identification to the building. An illustration of the new signage is to be provided to unit owners for their comment and review prior to its purchase. Further, the hanging baskets are to be place as they have been in the past over the patio”. 

Submitted by Ruth Horlick. Tony Boryski seconded. The resolution was duly passed by the attendees of the 2013 AGM but MOST TROUBLING, reported in the minutes as having been defeated.  An audio recording of the meeting, clearly confirms that the motion was APPROVED BY ATTENDEES! It has been suggested by many, that such corruption must not be permitted and the matter pursued. As of the end of July, 2017, no attempt has been made to address this approved motion.

• The commercial owner, and apparently with the full support of Residential Board members, has rejected the wishes of the above resolution, and gone so far as to use common area for their own commercial signage and remove the flowers which has resulted in a most material change to our common area grounds. All associated costs are in fact CAPITAL EXPENDITURES where as per our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act, must be presented to unit owners at a General Meeting within a Reserve Fund Budget for the approval of unit owners by special resolution.

Our bylaws clearly state that commercial signage is to be placed on the designated sign banner above the first level, and no where else. Again, residents may be demanded to pay for these unapproved commercial “capital expenditures”, often conveniently referred to as “repairs and maintenance” for purely ulterior reasons by the commercial owner. Unfortunately, our residential Board members continue to bow to the commercial owners care free spending and their ongoing demands for reductions to residential services.

• The Board has carelessly exposed itself to yet further liability over their most disrespectful address of damages in unit #1002 relating to water damage. Blockage within common area drainage lines below the unit, caused this damage, yet the Board most disrespectfully charged Mary Lehrer the owner, more than $2600 dollars. “Someone” arranged for the preparation of a letter from the attending contractor, which portrayed an untruthful diagnosis of the problem. A full audio recording of the contractors attendance along with several resident witnesses, clearly demonstrates that in fact, a false and misleading written diagnosis was provided and that in fact, a severe long term blockage within the common area had existed for some time.  Legal action to recover this illegitimate assessment is likely and is clearly appropriate. Very concerning warning signs of similar common area blockages over the past few years have been reported to management by residents. These calls for regular and preventive maintenance address have continued to be rejected by both management and the Board.
• Once again, the Board has refused to provide complete financial statements to residents with the continuing absence of a monthly balance sheet and Reserve Fund statement. Throughout the entire year, the big question among residents is “have you any idea what we have in the Reserve Fund”?  Responsible financial reporting requires both a monthly balance sheet and Reserve Fund Statement, so that residents are in fact provided with current information. Unfortunately, transparency of Corporation finances is avoided and preferred to be kept secret by the Board.

The Board has also failed to address inappropriate accounting issues on the part of management.

• These issues have repeatedly been brought to the attention of the Board who in turn simply reject such notices. The assets and liabilities were SUBSTANTIALLY misstated in the 2016 fiscal year end financial statements. The Board did admit to the excess of cash calls. With excessive condo fees due to irresponsible financial management, the Board has simply used cash calls to FURTHER cover up insufficient Reserve Fund contributions in condo fees IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE ALREADY EXCESSIVE MONTHLY OPERATING EXPENSES! The continuing “cover up” of “CAPITAL EXPENDITURES” VERSUS THE ILLICIT AND ONGOING USE OF THE “REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE” CLASSIFICATION, has been blatantly obvious for many years. Such illicit practises are in direct contravention of our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act. It is also illicit conduct on the part of the Board in rejecting requests of unit owners to hear presentation by the author of our most recent Reserve Fund Study which is required as per our Bylaws as part of our Reserve Fund Review. Once again, it appears that our Board has caved to the position of the commercial owner and “building operations committee” that no such transparency is necessary. Again, residents are reminded that the operations committee has in the past, admitted its lack of qualifications to address mechanical issues. A new committee is very much required.
• Residents have been falsely accused of failing to pay monthly condo fees when in fact, such accusations have proven to be simply false and defamatory. It seems Ms. Sandy Rees has an axe to grind with a number of residents, and makes such statements including “I am the only person that can see the bank account and I will be on holidays”, “please communicate with the McClocklin group of Companies and their representatives”. Such statements were made to residents attempting to find out why they were accused of non payment. Ms. Rees has stepped far out of bounds with her clear demonstration of her lacking qualifications. She must be consulted by the Board that her employer, the McClocklin Group of Companies has absolutely no business in interfering with the business of the Spadina Condominium Corporation. Further, Ms. Rees has no business in advising anyone that she “is the only person that can see the bank account and will be away on holidays”. The Condo Corporation in turn, has no business in permitting such unacceptable conduct from any such person to explicitly claim control over its bank account and to deem themselves empowered to do so at their own will. Such conduct on the part of Ms. Rees should be an embarrassment to the commercial owner as well as the Board of Directors. This demands her resignation as her behavior is well beyond that of any responsible Board member. She is obviously not qualified to represent unit owner interests. Yet again, this is simply a further addition to the long list of behavior directly related to conflicts of interest between management, the commercial owner and the Board of Directors. The commercial owner is encouraged to appoint a much more qualified director.
• Further to the subject of Corporation finances, at the 2016 AGM, the Board mislead residents by falsely stating that “the Corporation has always used cash calls; No Reserve Fund budget is necessary; There will be no vote!”. The Board mislead residents advising the meeting as well, that “the deductible for liability insurance was $25,000” when in fact IT WAS ONLY $1000. As a result, unit owners paid $48,067 to defend a claim of $12,102 when insurance could have paid for it. Why should residents pay for the Board’s neglegence in understanding their own insurance coverage! Why was there no attempt made to settle the claim! No insurance claim was made as the Board did not understand their own insurance policy coverage! Further, they falsely advised residents that “legal fees are not insurable”, even after AGM attending residents directed the Board at the meeting to this coverage within our insurance policy. Further, the Board once again failed to respect our Bylaws that require that “the insurance deductible shall be that as approved by unit owners”. NO SUCH APPROVAL HAS BEEN SOUGHT FROM UNIT OWNERS FOR MANY YEARS. The misleading position of the Board resulted in the unnecessary cost to residents of thousands of dollars. Any Board member making such untruthful statements, should in respect of fellow unit owners, resign from the Board.
• There has been for the past few years, a number of units listed for sale at Spadina Towers.  The resale market is currently soft, however qualified realtors have opined on the listings at Spadina Towers. They advise that far too often, potential clients have rightfully advised them that our building has unreasonable and excessive condo fees and are further compromised with with the ongoing nightmare and uncertainty of the Board’s infamous and illicit cash call practise. The history of lack of financial transparency and ongoing conflict of interest issues with management, the commercial owner and the Board, continue to be of grave concern as well. Responsible residents should speak up to such damaging influences upon resident unit values by the practises of the Board and particularly their acceptance of undue commercial owner influence.
•  Appropriate General Meeting protocol requires management to only attend to present a report to the meeting. Once they complete their report and respond to any questions, they should be excused from the meeting. A most fundamental aspect of proper General Meetings is to receive unit owner commentary and questions to the Board regarding issues with management. The presence of management at the meeting, prevents an open dialogue where management issues seek address. The presence of management at General Meetings has clearly demonstrated their most bias position to their employer. Therefore, management should only present their report, excuse themselves from the meeting, and allow the meeting to proceed with unbiased proceedings.
• Approximately ten years ago, the commercial owner provided to the Board a copy of a building review they had contracted with an engineering firm. They asked that the Board pay one half of the cost. The Board at that time of course objected. What was so troubling, was that the commercial owner was prepared to accept their report’s projection of Reserve Fund expenditures for the next ten year period (2006-2016) to be just over $100,000. This was rather shocking in that in fact such expenditures proved to be closer to $2,000,000 rather than just $100,000. Yet, with such irresponsible assessments of required expenditures, the Board continues to permit the commercial owner to be the “Operations Committee” when obviously, there is a clear demonstration of a lack of qualifications. The building deserves better and should be appointing another person who is in fact qualified for the position. 
• The conduct of the caretakers continues to be very questionable and certainly deserves attention from the Board. In 2009, the Larmond’s applied for the open caretaker position at Spadina Towers. As a result of the review process, only Rene Larmond was contracted by the Corporation. His wife was not contracted for reason, and was allowed only to assist her husband with cleaning. Duties of the caretaker were made very clear and included all of the services provided by previous caretakers. Since that time however, duties of the caretaker have been irresponsbily and drastically reduced by the Board and contracted to others. The costs of these new contracted services is expensive and unneccessary, yet continue to escalate. As all residents are aware, many requests for review of the caretaker contract have been made in an effort to understand just what the duties of the caretaker are. A past review of 2014 invoices by a resident, confirmed that many caretaker duties had been contracted with outside contractors. This is only one reason that a resident review of expenses is most imperative. Further, the caretakers were submitting invoices for numerous services which were obviously those that should have been included in their regular caretaker duties. The invoice review also revealed that the caretakers were spending substantial time working in the commercial condominium units, yet residents at the same time were advised that the caretakers were often too busy to conduct their regular duties in common areas.
• It is most worthy of mention, that numerous residents and their visitors have been verbally assaulted by the caretakers on various occasions. Any such behavior is totally unacceptable, and should any instance of this happen again, they should obviously be dismissed. The excessive caretaker compensation and benefits continues to be a concern, particularly given the numerous reductions in their required duties. Once again, residents are entitled access to all contracts including the caretaker contract which is hereby requested for the resident review of source documents in the near future.
• It is important that residents be informed that the law firm representing Spadina Condominium Corporation for many years, has been replaced with the McClocklin’s OWN lawyer who has clearly demonstrated a serious bias in the past to the sole interests of the McClocklins. It is most unusual for a responsible Board of Directors to repeatedly for an extended period of time, bow to the commercial owner in support of the McClocklin’s lawyer representing “OUR RESIDENTS”! This is a direct demonstration of a most serious conflict of interest and would be never be permitted by any responsible Board in any legitimate Corporation. It is suggested that the Board review the law regarding related conflict of interest issues in this regard and be prepared for the potential consequences. Such conflict is present only in corrupt organizations where only puppets support such conduct. Again, it is most troubling to see just how far our residential Board members will stoop to such influence by one individual owner. Should residential Board members not have the fortitude to stand up to such unscrupulous conduct, it would appear that the time has come to submit their resignations and the appointment of an administrator be entrusted to cease and forbid such illicit conduct, and once and for all, act honestly and responsibly on behalf of residents. The resulting cost savings to our Corporation would be very significant as a result.

Should any unit owner object to any opinion expressed herein to the above issues, it is suggested that should they wish to provide any reasonable and responsible response, their position should be supported (as is the writers), with supporting reference to relevant sections of our Bylaws, the Condominium Property Act and the Registered Plan of the Corporation. Should you not be able to support your position by providing such supporting references to such guidlines, your objections are simply unqualified and best left for another opportunity when you are in fact able to support your position with such references.

With the end of another fiscal year, the Board is requested yet once again, to address the many outstanding issues including the above. A resident requested review of source documents of the Corporation will provide an opportunity to help clarify these issues. Any Board rejection of this requested review, will simply demonstrate that serious conflict of interest issues do in fact exist. The Board is hereby requested to respond to this submission, advising as to when these source documents will be made available within a reasonable period of time. Given the most informative nature of details made available from the 2014 resident review, provision of all source documents for the fiscal years ending 2015, 2016 and 2017 are very much relevant and are hereby requested. The Board has proven to be very fearful of complying with this request, which demonstrates that they do have in fact something to hide in the way resident funds are being spent. Should the Board fail to respond to this request with assurance of providing the requested documents for hard copy examination and scanning within a reasonable period of time, an application will be made to the Court seeking such disclosure of these documents.

A most common question of residents is, just what fundamental changes are necessary in order to return democratic governance and goodwill within the building to its former glory days of now more than 10 years ago. The required changes are as follows:

1. Immediately contract with a TOTALLY INDEPENDENT AND UNBIASED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY.

2. Seeking majority residential support for adoption of SECTOR representation on the Board establishing a new structure of governance whereby SECTOR REPRESENTATION WILL HELP ENSURE THAT RESIDENTIAL BOARD REPRESENTATION IS DETERMINED BY RESIDENT OWNERS, JUST AS THE COMMERCIAL BOARD REPRESENTATION IS CURRENTLY DETERMINED BY THE COMMERCIAL OWNERS. This will return democracy to governance practises of our Corporation!

Any objection to such democratic governance measures will simply demonstrate support for not democracy, but continuing autocratic governance.

Spadina News Center – Dennis M. Tofin

Residents have been advised in writing that the four visitor parking stalls on the north side, are reserved for resident visitors only. The advisory further states that trade service vehicles are not permitted in these parking stalls.

Yet, there continues to be no enforcement of this regulation, and resident visitors have been forced to park on the street in metered parking as a result. This, while contractors are parking in these reserved stalls avoiding the $2.00 per hour street parking fee, while billing the building for their services at fees nearing $100 per hour often including charges for “vehicle service fees”.

It is most important that the Board, management and caretaker, all be advised, that residents very much reject not only the caretakers failure to seek immediate ticketing of these non permitted vehicles, but even more so, the caretakers history of verbal assault upon resident visitors attempting to occupy these stalls.

It must also be mentioned, that these contractor vehicles automatically enter the “resident visitor” parking stalls, but do not park in the “commercial visitor” parking stalls.

It again appears that our residential Board members are simply bowing to the commercial owners obstruction of parking policy in contravention of our building regulations.

Why has the parking memo provided to residents not been respected? Residential Board members are asked to respond if they have any responsible fortitude to do so!

Spadina Condominium since its inception, has had its own bank accounts (one for the Common Expense Fund and one for the Reserve Fund). However, when the McClocklin’s management company started managing the building, it simply on its own initiative and without Board approval, abruptly commingled Spadina’s two accounts into a common bank account shared by numerous other condo corporations. In 2009, the Board with grave concerns over this issue, proceeded with a formal resolution that directed management to re-establish segregation of our accounts. McClocklin’s management company has however ever since this resolution, failed to respect the resolution and has directed residents to make any and all payments to THEIR OWN BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS COMMINGLED WITH NUMEROUS OTHER McCLOCKLIN MANAGED PROPERTIES.

Spadina Condominium used to have prior to 2009, a separate bank account for our Reserve Funds providing yet FURTHER transparency of resident funds. The McClocklin’s management company has however rejected use of the Spadina Condo Corporation bank account which has existed since 2009, but has insisted upon the COMMINGLING OF BOTH OUR COMMON EXPENSE FUND AND OUR RESERVE FUNDS WITHIN ONE BANK ACCOUNT SHARED BY NUMEROUS OTHER ENTITIES AND PROPERTIES! It is most appropriate to request our Board to demand full disclosure from McClocklin’s property management company as to the identity of these “other entities and properties”. Any reasonably minded person can appreciate that given such accounting practices are inappropriate and totally unacceptable, such request for identity of those currently and in the past, sharing our bank account is most reasonable.

The following video presentation explains risk of fraud with this procedure which obvioulsy includes a total lack of transparency regarding resident funds and where their money is being spent. Residents should prevent potential fraud by not permitting commingling of their funds and in turn, direct their payments to their own private account SPADINA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION (Royal Bank Main Branch-07378 Account #1048529).

One particular resident has been making ALL PAYMENTS OF CONDO FEES AND ASSESSMENTS DIRECTLY TO THIS SEGREGATED BANK ACCOUNT ONLINE SINCE IT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2009. Management and the Board have now 8 years later, made accusations against this resident for not receiving payment for numerous monthly fees (even though provided bank records clearly confirm that these payments have been made). This resident has requested a copy of the SCC bank account records where, along with his personal bank account records, is able to verify that all payments have been made. However, the Board refuses to comply with the request, and continues to advise that the resident is in arrears. The Board continues to threaten legal action which the resident in fact welcomes, so as to prove the false allegations of management and the Board. They however refuse to acknowledge the request made to the Board to proceed with such an action. This is simply childish behavior on the part of management and a Board that clearly holds a personal vendetta upon anyone who questions their inappropriate and irresponsible conduct.

Please watch the following video which is most relevant to this issue! 

Residents are once again requesting that the Board make available to them all invoices and other source documents for the fiscal years 2015, 2016 and 2017. As per the video below, residents are very much entitled to this information. A resident review of 2014 invoices revealed some $30,000 in inappropriate expenditures. This request is therefore very much justified. This information is requested no later than August 15, 2017. Should the Board fail to comply with this reasonable request, an application to the Court will be made for compliance to the request.

This video and our LEGALLY REGISTERED PLAN, clearly demonstrate the unit area boundaries of a high rise condominium building. SCC failed to maintain the common area below #1002 this past year and as a result Mrs. Lehrer was wrongfully assessed more than $2600 for the damages. The Corporation is therefore legally obligated to reimburse the owner for these most inappropriate charges and unaddressed repairs.

From Spadina Condominium’s Registered Plan; “UNIT BOUNDARIES AND AREAS” 1 (A) Vertically. From the upper surface of the concrete floor, of this level to the under surface of the concrete ceiling of said level. End of story!

It is most unfortunate that individual Directors on our Board, while present in the common areas of the building,  continue to broadcast most disparaging, misleading and defamatory comments about a number of fellow unit owners. Our caretakers as well, have further demonstrated this most immature conduct and unlawful behavior. Our unit owners deserve better; better Board representation to replace these immature and irresponsible directors. Such illicit behavior was once again, clearly demonstrated yesterday, June 21st, 2017, and was witnessed personally. It is suggested that these people respect their fellow residents and simply keep their childish behavior within their private domain.

The Board unfortunately continues to refuse acknowledgement of such resident issues and provide any form of response. Such behavior is most irresponsible and unbecomming of any responsible resident and particularly Board members. Any unit owner who demonstrates any form of support for such illicit conduct, is certainly not welcome by responsible and respectful residents.

Should any further such behavior on the part of Board members, the caretakers or any resident illicitly pronouncing such words of support continue, they will be named here for their immature and irresponsible conduct in the interest of our more responsible unit owners.

Maurice Duval

730 Spadina Crescent East

SASKATOON, SK

S7K 4H7

ATTENTION: Mr. Maurice Duval, Treasurer

Re: Your letter of May 30, 2017 & Misleading Allegations

Dear Sir:

First of all, I have in fact chosen to use the automatic payment option to ensure prompt delivery of all payments I have made the Corporation. Unfortunately, you as a Board member seem to have conveniently forgotten that the Board directed management in 2007 to establish a segregated bank account with the Royal Bank for banking transactions relating to the Spadina Condominium Corporation. The Board at that time, had serious concerns with the accounting practices of Colliers McClocklin Property Management and their most insecure use of mingling our bank account with other properties. After quite some delay, the Board found it necessary in 2007, to request confirmation from management, that a separate bank account in the name of Spadina Condominium Corporation had in fact been established.

Once the account was established, now some ten years ago, I began to make payment of all monthly fees and special assessments, directly to the Corporation via a secure online transaction or by cheque. Until this past year, I have never received any objection to this “automatic payment option” to the Corporation’s bank account. You will find that any responsible Board of a condominium corporation, will insist on a segregated bank account in the name of their corporation, in the obvious interest of its unit owners.

In late December of 2009, you seconded a motion that would permit online monitoring of the SCC bank account with the Royal Bank. It is apparent, that you and the Board have failed to ensure that management does in fact make use of the established RBC Express Cash Management service to which the Corporation subscribed at that time.

I have been in business for many years and with thousands of payments made annually whether by cheque or online, I have never heard from any payee, the ridiculous request that I PROVIDE PROOF OF PAYMENT ON MY PART FOLLOWING A COMPLETED AND CONFIRMED PAYMENT TRANSACTION. Apparently, I am the only unit owner making payments directly to the SCC bank account, yet your management (and yourself), find it most difficult to determine where the deposits are coming from. I find it very interesting that you as a CPA, would suggest that a DETECTIVE AGENCY is required to “figure out where deposits apply”. I have repeatedly advised management, that should I be provided with a copy of the SCC bank statements, I would be pleased to assist by demonstrating to them the specific transactions reflecting my payments to the Corporation. Both management and the Board have refused my request.

You need to not “await my analysis of where to credit my payments and the proof of such payments”.

I am sure others are making online payments to an account other than to the appropriate bank account of Spadina Condominium Corporation. I understand these “others” have not been asked to provide special instruction as to where their payment is applied nor proof of their payment which has already been confirmed in their bank records. Why are records of my payments so difficult to understand? I have provided your management with all of the information they require to confirm that MY ACCOUNT IS IN FACT CURRENT AND THAT ALL ALLEGATIONS OF MANAGEMENT AND THE BOARD regarding the status of my account are in fact VERY INAPPROPRIATE AND MISLEADING.

My account status has been and continues to remain current, contrary to management and the Board.

Yet the Board has mislead unit owners that my account continues to remain in arrears. In fact, I may be the only unit owner that has had a credit balance in my account for some time. I suggest that you do as you have threatened, that being, taking “legal action” , to resolve the issue. If you feel that you are correct, at least stand with your word and file a statement of claim. Of course, I fully expect that, with you and other residential Board member support, the legal counsel of the McClockin’s will of course be engaged to pursue this matter.  I look forward to your submission of a report from your detective agency as you have informed is required, and a subsequent meeting with you in Court in order to seek resolution to this matter once and for all.Your personal bias as a “YES MAN” to the commercial owner and your conflict of interest via your past and potentially current commercial relationship with the McClocklin’s, is very much contrary to the interests of Spadina Condominium unit owners. This matter is in fact, a very relevant issue as it relates to the above. As has been previously requested, please adhere to responsible Board governance responsibilities and obligations, by providing to the unit owners a written declaration of any current or past commercial or professional relationship with the management company or any entity related to the McClocklin’s. Your continued rejection of providing such a declaration, will of course, clearly demonstrate a most troubling and serious issue of concern to our unit owners.

Yours truly,

Dennis M. Tofin

SASKATOON, SK S7K 4H7

(306)242-0409

Email: dennistofin@shaw.ca

The recent decision of the Courts truly demonstrated a lack of understanding of the Statement of Claim by Dennis Tofin and as a result, the issues remain unaddressed by the Corporation. The claim was for:

• Duplicate charges for carpeting in hallway
• Failed water shut off repair
• Repair or replace security monitor
• Maintenance and repair of balcony
• Request to install humidifier
• Failure to address leakage onto vehicle (loss of stall rental)

TOTAL CLAIM  $12,102/ AMOUNT SPENT TO DEFEND CLAIM $48,067!

Yes, rather than negotiate address to the failure of the BOARD to conduct the above maintenance and repair issues (which could have been settled for approximately $5000), the BOARD chose to carelessly spend $48,067 using MCCLOCKLIN’S OWN LAWYER with open ended fees, to defend a claim of a relatively minimal amount of $12,102 even though the repair and maintenance stated in the claim must be completed at some point in the near future anyway! Residents must ask, WAS THEIR BOARD ACTING RESPONSIBLY IN THIS MATTER AFTER REJECTING NEGOTIATION OF SETTLEMENT AND SPENDING UNNECCESSARY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS? 

Any responsible person would realize that any decision to waste unit owner funds ($48,067) in such a manner, clearly demonstrates an irresponsible and incompetent Board. Only fools, or those with ulterior motives, would support the waste of “other peoples” money in such a manner. Clearly, the Board has a vendetta upon those who dare question their irresponsible conduct.

It is clear tIhat the Board strongly objects to any question of their irresponsible conduct and will spend thousands of dollars of unit owner money in an attempt to silence the voice of unit owners who seek accountability from the Board.

If this were a private business Corporation, with the same unrelenting demand for cash but without the convenient resource of cash taken at will from silent and most vulnerable residents, this Corporation would be in bankruptcy.

I have been in business for 45 years and have successfully owned and self managed more than 20 investment properties. Never have I witnessed such irresponsible and illicit conduct in the management of a property.

Residents who may support such irresponsible conduct, simply fail to demonstrate any qualification to provide any qualified assessment of this dire situation and simply find it easier to close their eyes, cover their ears and write cheques upon demand of them.

Dennis M. Tofin

The following letter is very relevant to Spadina Towers where management and the Board have demonstrated similar behavior to those in each of the three scenerios noted:

Letter: [The following letter is from a former contractor; the highlights have been added for emphasis.] I have just finished reading some of your pages and I think that there is one issue that is missing and that is important to address. I am a [deleted] by trade and have worked for 4 different companies before this. I finished my degree with night courses and have been employed for the past two years by the [X] ministry. What I want to explain to you is that for contractors [for repairs, maintenance, and installation], condos are an inexhaustible source of profits.

The first scenario goes like this: the contractor or one of the workers are related to either the manager, the management company or the superintendent or even a board director. Such an “in” gets a lot more contracts with much less competitive bids because the manager has an interest in seeing that you get work on a regular basis, or likes you personally. Lots of managers come from backgrounds like us and it’s easy to see how this develops and how they “feel” more for us than for their [condo] budget and the owners in a building.

The second scenario goes like this: there is a board that does not care or does not know better so it’s easy when a little something goes wrong, the manager calls you and you find the solution and charge a bit more for the repairs than you would do if the manager or board knew what they were doing, and then you point out that something else is wrong (even if it is not) and you “fix” this as well. A lot of guys [contractors] don’t see anything wrong with this because “If they are so stupid and have so much money to throw around, why shouldn’t we have a piece of the pie, we work hard”.

So when you have a board that is not knowledgeable and especially when they know or think that the condo is aging, it’s real easy to get them to spend, even if these “repairs” could wait a few years or it’s easy to overcharge a bit. And when on top of this the board depends on a manager that is on your [contractor’s]side, well you have it made.

A third scenario is that the manager sorts of rigs the contracts so that you end up getting the best bid and you win. She can do this because she knows who charges too much or more or better she lets us know how much the others propose to charge so we get this right. Or else we provide a real low bid and ask for more money later on during the repairs.

Finally I’ll add that when a board is ineffective and the manager doesn’t like to have too much work, and a contractor is doing a special contract job, the contractor always goes back to ask for more money, either because “something new came up that couldn’t be predicted,” or because “it’s taking much longer than anticipated.” Of course the boards or the managers always approve the increase. That’s why boards and managers should be careful how they word their contracts for a job. They should do it for the job and not for the time spent or other contingencies.

I’d say that nearly all contractors will do it given the opportunity; if your client is stupid or doesn’t care, why not? No harm done and good for job creation. But we don’t do it if a president knows what’s what and runs his ship well.

Unfortunately, the above scenerios describe the conduct of the management and Board at Spadina Towers. Those with qualifying experience in financial accounting and responsible property management, can easily identify this misconduct. Yet those NOT qualified in this regard, choose to vocalize and embarass themselves at General Meetings, where they clearly demonstrate their lack of any qualifying or relevant experience or knowledge.  They blindly and unconditionally accept the position of the Board, with absolutely no interest in supporting any request of accountability from management or the Board. These residents, unqualifed or lacking relevant knowledge, often find it easier to simply “fall in line” with the wishes of management and the Board, and with no self respect for their own interests, simply accept being a “faithfull subject of whom they apparently deem to be their master”. 

While the Board continues their annual six month hibernation, residents have been subjected to a most unacceptable delay of Board response to their questions and concerns. It is certainly unfair to residents when their interests are represented by Board members who are absent for much of the year.

1. The net Reserve Fund balance as of June 30^th, 2016 was effectively $395,887 (NOT THE REPORTED $488,892) after acknowledging and accounting FOR ALL PROJECTED RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES (which most notably, neglected the requirement of unit owner approval as per our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act). This is obviously a most material accounting discrepancy of almost $100,000! Most responsible Board members would resign upon this most disturbing disclosure!
2. After some Board members advised residents at the October, 2016 AGM that all proceeds from the cash call were TOTALLY COMMITTED, the treasurer then admitted in total contradiction, that the AMOUNT OF THE CASH CALL WAS IN FACT NOT TOTALLY COMMITTED, BUT WAS EXCESSIVE AND UNNECESARY, and that a substantial amount could be refunded to residents as a result. The meeting was left with no formal resolution as to address of this refund.
3. Residents were NOT advised that REPAIRS TO the patio area in front of the building, were to include IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE  EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF THE COMMERCIAL OWNERS including newly constructed steps and other unknown and unapproved improvements for their sole benefit. As residents had been advised that all RESERVE FUND/CAPITAL EXPENDITURES relating to the surface area of the parkade INCLUDING RESURFACING OF THE FRONT PATIO, were included in the COMMITTED EXPENDITURES presented to them as of June 30, 2016, any ADDITIONAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES relating to IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMERCIAL OWNER, WERE NOT, AND OF COURSE SHOULD BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COMMERCIAL OWNER. No such expenditure was presented to unit owners for approval in a Reserve Fund Budget. Hopefully, residents and particularly resident Board members, will not continue to bow to the wishes of the commercial owner and help them pay for any unapproved yet demanded IMPROVEMENTS by the Commercial Owner for their own benefit.
4. Residents have observed the recent painting and carpet replacement in the basement and stairwell area. The comments include, why was this RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURE not presented to residents for approval in a Reserve Fund Budget, and how could the Board inappropriately approve the estimated $9000 projected cost which is totally unreasonable and could have been completed for no more than one third of this cost. This is what happens with a NO TENDER POLICY, again at the unnecessary and detrimental expense to residents.
5.  What has happened to the approval demanded by unit owners to finally provide indentification of the building to its long term recognition as SPADINA TOWERS? It seems once again, our resident Board members have succumbed to the wishes of the commercial owner to not see this building identified as SPADINA TOWERS, but be identified with the primary recognition with the commercial owners name. The commercial owner is already entitled to their exclusive signage for identification of tenants. Identifiction of the building known as SPADINA TOWERS is beneficial to all unit owners and their is no valid reason for objection to prominent signage identifying the ENTIRE PROPERTY AS SPADINA TOWERS AS IT SHOULD BE. Can our residential Board members at least demonstrate in this regard, that they are not unduly influenced by the wishes (demands) of the commercial owners?
6. The Commercial Owner has refused to repay the Corporation for thousands of dollars relating to expenditures for their own exclusive benefit. This includes thousands of dollars in Corporation funds used for renovations in the commercial condominium units. In most condominiums, residents would raise not only objection, but refusal to participate in such costs. It’s about time the residents at Spadina Towers not allow themselves to accept such irresponsible conduct. Since a resident inspection of invoices of the Corporation as conducted in 2015 which revealed a shocking number and amount of “inappropriate” expenditures (thousands of dollars) and related conduct, THE BOARD HAS REJECTED ANY FURTHER REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES. THE OBVIOUS QUESTION OF RESIDENTS SHOULD BE IF NOT, WHY! Responsible residents will demand a review of invoices and related records since that review in early 2015. Unfortunately, irresponsible residents will not seek such transparency and will sadly contribute to such illegitimate expenses without asking any questions. Only at Spadina Towers!

Hopefully, residents will soon begin to question some of these issues on their own. It is only a matter of common sense. Simply agreeing to continue writing cheques upon demand without asking questions, is simply irresponsible on the part of residents.

Are residents really prepared to continue writing cheques for expenditures that are not legally approved without any respect for the required due process of unit owner approval as per the Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act?

Should any resident or Board member object to others questioning the conduct of the Corporation and the Board of Directors, and expect any reasonable respect, they are well advised to familiarize themselves with both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act and further, be prepared to support their position with direct reference to these laws, and as well, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Failing to do so, will only deem such resident objections to be without credibility and unqualified representation of both they and the interests of their fellow residents.

It is a universal standard that maintenance of the COMMON AREA is the responsibility of the Condominium Corporation. It is also a universal standard, that the COMMON AREA, includes the area between the ceiling undersurface in an individual unit and the surface of the concrete floor in the above unit. This is clearly outlined in the Condominium Property Act and Registered Building Plan of the Spadina Condominium Corporation.

Mary Lehrer in unit #1002 was subjected to the Board’s refusal to acknowledge the requirement of this law, and was forced to pay for the “REPAIR OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE” IN THE COMMON AREA BELOW HER UNIT which was not her responsibility but that of Spadina Condominium Corporation. There was clear evidence that a serious blockage within the common area had existed for quite some time, and as a result, the use of a highly acidic material was required to remove this long term neglected blockage.

The Board has refused to reimburse Mrs. Lehrer for the $2500 in repair costs and as well, for the damage to her unit caused by the contractor. It is suggested that the Board recognize their responsibility, reimburse Mrs. Lehrer, and provide her with a written apology.

1. The Board refused to present a Reserve Fund Budget for the review and approval by unit owners as is required by the Bylaws and the Condominium Act. On one hand they state that any such expenditures are unknown as of October 6, 2016, YET at the same time, they state that residential and other common area expenditures will be conducted strictly at the Board’s discretion. This is a very obvious contravention of the Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act, particularly when residents are refused their right to vote.
2. The Board failed to ensure that unit owners were provided an opportunity to ask questions of the attending Auditor as is recommended within Auditing Standards.
3. The Board failed to permit unit owners to appoint an Auditor as is required by the Bylaws.
4. The Board failed to address the status and required address, of the considerable deferred maintenance.
5. The Board misled residents by advising that the Corporation “has always used cash calls”. This is false and misleading. Dennis Tofin was on the Board for 14 years and only once was a cash call made to unit owners. At each AGM over the past few years, the treasurer advised the meeting “we have always used cash calls. NO reserve fund budget is necessary”. He continued by stating, “the Board will appoint the accountant! There will be no vote!”  A rather unbecoming statement coming from a professional accountant, when our Bylaws clearly require appointment of the Auditor by the unit owners at the AGM. With an extensive lobby effort by Board members (including the owner of the management doing our monthly accounting) to NOT have an audit for the year ended June 30, 2016, conflict of interest issues become very apparent.
6. The Board mislead residents with advisement that the Corporation’s deductible for liability insurance was $25,000 when in fact it is only $1000. Further, they falsely claimed that the legal fees “are not insurable”. The Board further failed to respect that the Bylaws require that “the insurance deductible shall be that as approved by unit owners”. The Board mislead residents by stating that $17,300 in legal fees could not be paid as “reserve funds were totally committed”. After collecting the remaining $450,000 from the cash call, and then paying the “remaining commitment under the contracts of $524,580, a cash balance of $400,462 remains in the funds. Given this fact, the Board failed to provide a reasonable explanation as to why a cash call for $17,300 was required and no insurance claim was initiated.
7. With one Board member stating emphatically that “all remaining funds are totally committed”, the treasurer then advised the meeting that the “excess funds could be refunded to unit owners”. This contradiction left most residents rather confused. However, the treasurers statement clearly suggested that ALL REMAINING FUNDS ARE IN FACT NOT COMMITTED! If there was a FURTHER committment of funds, then it is required that they be reflected in the financial statements. On the other hand, why was this $400,000 excess of cash not been duly reflected in the financial statements?
8. Canadian Accounting Standards state that “revenues are recorded when they are earned, even if money has not yet been received, and expenses when they are incurred, even if payment has not yet been made so as to yield statements that accurately measure the company’s operations and state of obligation with others”.  Spadina Condominium’s financial statements have clearly NOT met this required standard. It should be noted that the Auditor failed to recognized inappropriate expenditures and other accounting irregularities brought to the attention of the property manager by residents. A report to the Board and management should have been presented to the Board by the Auditor advising them of these accounting “irregularities”. Further, a contingency should have been reflected in the Audited financial statement to ensure disclosure of the irregularities. An amended Auditor’s report should be prepared to ensure full transparency and a full accounting of these issues. Management and the Board failed to respect their obligation to disclose to the Auditor, their receipt of requests from residents to address these financial “irregularities”. The Auditor is then required to address these issues and ensure any required amended entries that are required in providing an “accurate Audited report on the Corporation’s financial affairs.”
9. For a number of years, the Board has insisted that doors and windows are the responsibility of unit owners. As stated by the chairman at the time Mel Malkin, “any replacement of front windows by the Corporation was before my time”. It is on the record, that while Mr. Malkin was on the Board, SIX front windows had in fact been replaced at the expense of the Corporation. Then while on the Board, Peter Dielschneider responded to a request of Eleanor Williams for replacement of her front window which had been neglected by the Board for several years. His response read: “The Condo Act was revised in 1993 placing the cost of windows in the hands of the owner. In declining the request, the Board is following the Act”. Mr. Dielscneider mislead residents with an obvious misrepresentation of the Act which DOES EFFECTIVLY REQUIRE “PLACING THE COST OF WINDOWS IN THE HANDS OF THE CORPORATION AND NOT THE UNIT OWNERS AS WAS FALSELY DECLARED BY MR. DIELSCHNIEDER”. It is very troubling when a former Board member makes such a flawed and misleading declaration. After publically rejecting, criticizing and demeaning Dennis Tofin for his year after year requests of the Board to respect the Condominium Act as it relates to front windows, the Mr. Dielschneider and the Board finally in the fiscal year ended June 30^th, 2016, (not several years ago as the meeting was informed) have finally admitted that their position for a number of years, had in fact been wrong and in contravention of the Act. The provisions within the Act are very clear, yet the Board paid for “professionals” to explain the obvious provisions of the Act to them, of course at the expense of unit owners. An apology from Mr. Dielschnieder and the Board is certainly due to Mr. Tofin. An apology and reimbursement to Eleanor Williams is also due from the Board.

10. Brent Dunlop advised the meeting of personal comments that he alleges came from Mr. Tofin. He is referring to one late evening in 2015, when he rapped on Mr. Tofin’s door with a memo in his hand, provided to him by Wendy Larmond. Upon getting out of bed and opening the door, Mr. Tofin was immediately confronted by a very obnoxious Mr. Dunlop, who using some special rated language, asked why a memo that Mr. Tofin had delivered to only a few individuals, was not delivered to him. Mr. Tofin, immediately advised him that he was simply not an intended recipient of the memo. He later advised that Wendy Larmond provided him with a copy. No memo was delivered to Mrs. Larmond either, and it was obvious that she “unlawfully” obtained from a source which the Board should disclose immediately. Mr. Dunlop was asked to request from Mrs. Larmond her source of the document and provide it to Mr. Tofin, but he did not. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD MAKE THAT REQUEST OF MRS. LARMOND. It is only reasonable that Mr. Dunlop and the Board issue an immediate apology to Dennis Tofin for the unacceptable conduct of both he and Mrs. Larmond.
11. It is most interesting that a Board member was complaining about not receiving a memo that others received, and then turns around and threatens retaliation against a resident for distributing a memo to anyone. This of course brings grave concern as to the continuing abscence of democracy in our building. Unfortunately, Mr. Dunlop avoided any mention of  mutual agreement that the proposed statement of claim would be open to discussion in order to seek resolution without the necessity of a court action. Mr. Dunlop and the Board never did make any attempt to discuss the matter.
12. The Board (Tom McClocklin Sr.) misinformed the meeting, in advising that Mary Lehrer (unit 1002), had a sewer backup into her unit as a result of “her plumbing”. This is again, a false and misleading advisory comming from the Board.The problem was due to a major blockage in a lateral drainage line below her unit in the common area, which is the responsibility of the Corporation. Again, the Condominium Act is very clear in defining the legal boundaries of units. Must residents yet again, bear the cost of seeking a “professional opinion” because the Board does not understand the relevant sections of the Act? More importantly, why must Mrs. Lehrer pay the $2500 plus bill for removing the blockage in the common area?
13. Mary Lehrer, had hoped to attend the AGM to voice her objection to the $278.53 cash call she received for legal fees. Unfortunately, she was unable to attend. Mrs. Lehrer recently received, prior to the AGM, a notice of registration of a lien against her unit for non payment of this amount. It appears that the Board will now make a further assessment against her for registration and discharge fees of approximately $500! Such oppressive conduct on the part of the Board against residents who have resided and contributed to the building for much longer than any Board member, is deplorable! Any reasonably minded resident, should express to the Board immediately, their objection to such oppressive conduct which is absolutely shameful!
14. A resident advised the meeting that concerns expressed by Dennis Tofin, were “minutia and old stuff” and that “we assume that the Board acts on our behalf”. To SIMPLY ASSUME that the Board “ACTS ON OUR BEHALF” without responsible scrutiny by unit owners, is clearly, both naïve and irresponsible. To describe opposition to the efforts of others to bring attention to the many thousands of dollars in inappropriate expenditures by the Board, as minutia and old stuff, demonstrates a lack of understanding responsible financial management. It is most unfortunate, that residents with little if any financial or business knowledge, make such statements which are not accompanied by facts or supporting references to the Bylaws and Condominium Property Act. Such residents feel entitled to criticizing others, but demonstrate little if any effort to seek any meaningful address to the issues SUPPORTED BY FACTS.
15. The Board advised the meeting, that it is “not possible to deal with Dennis Tofin” and asked Mr. Tofin, “Are you accusing us of not abiding by the Bylaws and Act?” No Board member has ever made any reasonable attempt to discuss the many issues of the Corporation with Mr. Tofin, and yes, he has unfortunately found it necessary, to remind the Board of their many contraventions of the Bylaws and Act. Yet, the Board maliciously attacks Mr. Tofin for providing such reminders to them.
16. Regarding Peter Dielschneider’s motion to the meeting, he clearly mislead the meeting, with his many false, misleading and defamatory accusations against Dennis Tofin.  Who is he to pursue yet further oppressive conduct upon Mr. Tofin, simply because of Mr. Tofin’s relvealing of inappropriate and unacceptable Board governance practices. What is most shocking, is the obvious and disturbing neglect on the part of Mr. Dielschneider, to acknowledge the many breaches of law by the Board of Directors. While both on and off the Board, he criticized and demeaned Dennis Tofin for his attempts to remind and inform the Board of their obvious and unacceptable breaches of the law.

PLEASE BE ADVISED:

1. There will be no “shut down” of spadinanewscenter.com. The site clearly provides a REALISTIC assessment of Corporation activities from a responsible resident perspective, supported by facts. Further, the site provides a great resource center with information and educational segments, along with a library and history of documents specifically related to the Spadina Condominium Corporation. CONTRARY, to critics including the Board of Directors, site access is restricted to unit owners of the Corporation who are enabled access with a special password.
2. Contrary to the statement of Mr. Dielschneider, there is no “published newsletter” provided by Dennis Tofin. When it is appropriate, Mr. Tofin has sent to residents, excerpt posts via a printed memo from spadinanewscenter.com, where it has been determined that residents be informed when the Board has failed to inform or advise residents of information relevant to them.
3. Written communications to the Board will continue whenever Dennis Tofin deems it to be necessary. Mr. Dielschneider’s statement that Board members have been bombarded with communications from Mr. Tofin, is false, misleading and simply, yet another malicious attempt to villainize Mr. Tofin.

Both Mr. Dielschnieder and the Board mislead residents with a false and misleading accusation that Dennis Tofin has been harassing Board members on a monthly, weekly and daily basis. Mr. Tofin has only communicated with the chairman when deemed necessary, and has made very few if any telephone calls or written communication to any other Board member over the past year. It should be noted that Board member Sandy Rees, recently advised Mr. Tofin to communicate with the McClocklin Group of Companies. Incidentially, one must ask, what is an employed secretary of the McClocklin Group of Companies, doing in giving any resident any such instruction? Mr. Deilschneider and the Board have yet again provided false and misleading statements in an effort to silence any questioning of Board governance practices.

All communications from Mr. Tofin have valid reason, and such false accusations, are only a strategic effort on the part of the Board to silence Mr. Tofin in his most entitled and reasonable efforts to seek responsible address of issues by the Board.

There were several supporting comments of Mr. Deilschnieder’s motion, however they were totally without merit and not worthy of address.

17.Residents are well advised to very carefully review the facts of the issues presented and as well, pay particular attention to the issues Mr. Tofin revealed which the Board had attempted to conceal.  Any resident is well advised to ensure that any position they may have left the AGM with, must be supported by facts and not simply references to inaccurate and misleading rhetoric that they may have heard from the Board at the meeting.

It is very unfortunate that the vast accumulation of operational issues requiring address, were not permitted presentation for discussion at the AGM. This includes the matter of window cleaning and required window sealing repair that has not been conducted for two years. In the meantime, several units continue to be damaged with water leakage due to neglected repair of failed caulking on the exterior of the building walls, to be conducted at the same time as window cleaning. The Board has misled residents with their ongoing assertion that we must spend some $100,000 on anchors in order to enable cleaning of windows and related caulking maintenance and repair. No mention of anchors appears in the Reserve Fund Study report, of which the Board has rejected Mr. Tofin’s request for presentation by its author. Contrary to inaccurate minutes of the 2015 AGM, the Reserve Fund Study WAS NOT PRESENTED BY MAURICE DUVAL AT THE 2015 MEETING. No such presentation “APPEARS ON THE RECORD”, yet the 2016 AGM refused to reflect this correction in the 2015 AGM minutes! THE RESERVE FUND STUDY must be considered (as per the Condomium Act Regulations) by unit owners in their review and approval of the Reserve Fund Budget. Yet, the Board has refused to present a qualified presentation of the Study by its author.

IN FACT, NO REQUIREMENT FOR PERMANENT ANCHORS IS REQUIRED, AS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE OFFICE OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY. Yet the Commercial windows were cleaned on April 28, 2016, just before the commencement of grounds construction and the related dust conditions immediately adjacent to the commercial front windows. A LOCAL CONTRACTOR HAS ADVISED THAT THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO CLEAN ALL WINDOWS THIS FALL, GIVEN SUFFICIENT NOTICE AND REASONABLE WEATHER CONDITIONS. The Board, and particularly the commercial owner, has maintained and clearly misinformed residents by clearly mistating that permanent anchors are required.

It is also most unfortunate, that some residents once again, remain silent with no objection to what they have heard and didn’t hear from Board members at this meeting. Some even unconditionally “assume that the Board is acting on their behalf”. These same residents, are however, most willing to criticize those more consiencious residents who make at least some attempt to bring attention to issues where the Board is NOT acting responsibly on their behalf. No responsible unit owner is willing to permit the Board  to continue spending at their own discretion, residents money without any reasonable accountabililty and transparency. This includes resident entitlement to their legal right of participation in review, discussion and approval of expenditures of the Corporation. Responsible residents should insist that the BOARD IS NOT PERMITTED TO APPROVE ON THEIR OWN, ANY RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURE. THEY SHOULD INSIST ON UNIT OWNER APPROVAL OF BOTH THE EXPENDITURE AND THE MEANS OF FUNDING THAT EXPENDITURE. THIS IS WHY A RESERVE FUND BUDGET MUST BE PRESENTED TO UNIT OWNERS FOR THEIR APPROVAL AT THE AGM AND AT FURTHER GENERAL MEETINGS IF FURTHER EXPENDITURES REQUIRE APPROVAL. UNILATERAL BOARD APPROVAL OF RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES AND THEIR MEANS OF FUNDING IS UNLAWFUL. 

It is astonishing that residents remained totally silent, upon hearing that some $30,000 plus in inappropriate expenditures were being considered or already paid at the time of Mr. Tofin’s review of invoices, including thousands of dollars of commercial owner expenses. This is obviously very disturbing. Many residents have apparently, due to possibly lack of reasonable finance and management knowledge, simply accepted the position that has been quoted by a resident; “WE ASSUME THAT THE BOARD ACTS ON OUR BEHALF”. NO FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PERSON WILL EVER SIMPLY ASSUME IN THE ABSENCE OF SCRUTINY, THAT THE BOARD SHOULD BE LEFT WITH TOTAL AND UNQUESTIONED DISCRETION AS TO USE OF THEIR FUNDS. 

The scrutiny of management and the Board deemed necessary by Mr. Tofin, has resulted in at least some prevention of the commercial owner using Corporation funds for its own benefit. This scrutiny has saved residents thousands of dollars. There are however, many more thousands that could be returned to the credit of residents. This can only be achieved with responsible resident scrutiny of operations and financial management of the Corporation.

In conclusion, a very important message:  All Board members and a number of residents, have clearly demonstrated most inappropriate objection to Mr. Tofin’s many legitimate requests of the Board, to address the many deficiencies demonstrated within the conduct of the Board as it relates to their legally required address of both operational and finance issues. It should be noted, that all statements and observations provided by Mr. Tofin, are fully supported by THE FACTS.

Spadina Towers board of directors, refuses resident access to THEIR OWN documents!

Why does our board, contrary to the law, continue to reject resident requests to review invoices and other records of the Corporation? With the failure of the Auditor to respond to serious accounting irregularities and illegal conduct on the part of management and the board, it is now obvious that an Audit committee be established with non board volunteers encouraged to participate.

Spadina Towers has its own bank account. It was established in 2009 at the request of the Board of Directors via resolution. The properties management company, owned by the McClocklins, has however failed to respect the resolution and has directed residents to make any and all payments to THEIR OWN ACCOUNT WHICH IS COMMINGLED WITH OTHER PROPERTIES. The following video presentation explains this procedure which results in a total lack of transparency regarding resident funds and where their money is being spent. Residents should prevent potential fraud by not permitting commingling of their funds and direct their payments to the SPADINA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION. Please watch the following video!

The national portion of Reserve Fund contributions within monthly condominium fees is 20.3%. The Reserve Fund portion at Spadina Towers is 5.9%!

It is unfortunate that the north driveway rather than the south driveway, is being used as a staging area to facilitate construction of the unapproved and “newly designed” frontage area of the property. The south side driveway was in full use shortly after pouring of the surface. Why was the south driveway not used as a staging area where commerical access is only necessary during the day while residential access is required 24/7/365.

Residents are forced to put up without use of the north driveway, as long as construction is in progress. The inconvenience to residents extends to visitors, health care providers, etc.who require access 24 hours a day.

Further, it is interesting that residents succumbed to the wishes of a few, to spend thousands of dollars “fobbing” doors in the amenities area simply because of one uncorroborated report of “kids” in this area and “liability” issues. Yet, no one has expressed any concern at all, over the wide open access to anyone off the street, that can simply enter the south entrance, get on the residential elevator, and reach any floor they wish.

Residents require access to the building 24/7/365. Unfortunately, they have and will continue to share access with strangers off the street over the entire day. Commercial tenants on the other hand, have unfettered access to the property including parking for their visitors.

It is unfortunate and certainly disrespectful of residents, that the Board has restricted the very irritating racket of concrete drilling to early (7 AM) morning hours, during the noon hour, and after 5 PM in order to, as residents have been advised, “to not make noise at the commercial time”.

It appears that once again, our residential Board representation, has simply bowed to the interests of the commercial owner, and is prepared to simply permit insecurity and inconvenience to their fellow residents.

Residents are asking why has there been a cash call demanded of them for legal fees, yet no response has been provided? The Board has recently announced a CASH CALL to residents for legal costs. Why has the Board refused to provide any background information at all to residents, including the fact that they are defending a claim of $12,100 at a cost of $17,300. With funds of approximately $500,000 on hand at June 30, 2016, why did the Board find a cash call necessary for these legal fees?

The matter relates to a claim by Dennis Tofin against the Corporation for the Board’s refusal to address deferred maintenance issues which have been outlined in a previous post on April 9th. The reasons for this action should be reviewed by all residents. To access this information, simply contact spadinanewscenter.com (user name and password are both the number 731). A memo including these reasons was previously distributed as well.

The Board president asked Mr. Tofin in January of 2015, if a claim he was considering, was open for negotiating settlement. Mr. Tofin responded that it was certainly open for negotiation, but the Board refused to discuss the matter any further. The matter could have been resolved very easily. Unfortunately, with this rejection by the Board, Mr. Tofin was forced to seek a last resort address to the issues by way of a legal action.

The claim against the Corporation was for $12,100 but was always open for negotiation. An award of these funds, would simply have been used by Mr. Tofin, to complete, at his own expense, address to the outstanding deferred maintenance issues, which should have been addressed by the Corporation. Why would the Board totally reject address to these outstanding deferred maintenance issues, knowing full well, that they are ultimately, fully responsible for completing and paying for this maintenance at some point? 

The Board, rather than pursuing discussion and negotiation, chose to refuse any further communication with Mr. Tofin, and accepted the risk of a court decision resulting in potential legal costs to the Corporation and in addition, an order of the Court requiring address of these issues at yet additional costs to the Corporation.

Why would a Board choose to spend $17,300 in defending a $12,100 claim? What Board discussion took place to approve this expenditure? Why did the Board not make any attempt to discuss the matter with Mr. Tofin prior to making any such decision?  Why is the Board demanding $17,300 from unit owners, when the cost to the Corporation currently totals $7300, as a result of an order of the Court for Mr. Tofin to pay $10,000?

Why has the Board made this cash call which is totally unnecessary. The Corporation has an estimated $150,000 cash on hand, and in each condo news report, the Board continues to advise residents of their being under budget and in a very financially sound position? Cash calls are only permitted for EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES WHERE FUNDS ON HAND ARE INSUFFICIENT! Residents of course have not been informed over the past year of funds on hand, but it is currently estimated to be some $150,000 plus. Such cash calls are unheard of in any responsibly managed condominium corporation. Why has the Board concealed this information from residents?

Most condominium corporations, including Spadina Towers, have liability insurance coverage to cover legal costs. Our Corporation has always had such coverage. Why was no insurance claim made by the Corporation? Residents are of course, entitled to an explanation, and as well, a copy of any relevant communications with the insurance company, and as well, those with the Corporation’s legal counsel(s).

Further, why are residents being assessed before a final decision of the Court has been made?  And most particularly, why is the Board simply not addressing these deferred maintenance issues presented by Mr. Tofin, which must be addressed at some point and at a cost of $12,100 anyway?

It is not Mr. Tofin who has neglected deferred maintenance issues, but was obviously a Board decision. If any other responsible resident was impacted in the same way Mr. Tofin has with this neglect and refusal of the Corporation to discuss and resolve these issues, they would also find that they too, would realize that their only option to seek address, is most unfortunately, through the courts. Why did the Board refuse to even discuss the matter with Mr. Tofin?

It is clearly apparent, and acknowledged by residents, that there appears to be an ulterior motive behind the Board refusing to address the deferred maintenance issues brought forth by Mr. Tofin. It appears, that the constant barrage of disparaging comments and insults upon Mr. Tofin, for his ongoing effort to seek address to these neglected issues, particularly in residential units and adjoined common areas, is a most strategic effort by the Board to silence Mr. Tofin.

 It is totally unnecessary and inappropriate for the Board, to demand cash from residents to pay for a matter yet to be decided by the Court. Residents contribute in their condo fees, to the substantial costs of insurance, which covers such costs. Why has no insurance claim be made by the Corporation? This entire matter, could have easily been resolved, within monthly condo fees, already provided BY RESIDENTS.

It appears that the Board has and will continue to attempt whatever measure it takes, and at whatever cost necessary, to silence Mr. Tofin in his seeking of responsible address, to serious and neglected deferred maintenance issues impacting his property and that of other residents as well.

Hopefully, residents will feel more informed with the above information, much of which has unfortunately been concealed from them by the Board. Had the Board pursued discussion as offered by Mr. Tofin, residents would not have had any need to be bothered with this entire matter.

RESOLUTION OPTIONS

To ensure that residents are provided with a source of authority on this issue, they should refer to the binding legal documents pertaining to governance of the Corporation. These include, the Corporate Bylaws, the Condominium Property Act/Regulations, and the Registered Condominium Plan for Spadia Towers. Residents are very much encouraged to review appropriate references within these documents, which clearly provide confirmation that the Corporation is in fact responsible for completion and payment for the neglected deferred maintenance, as sought by Mr. Tofin in his claim.

Finally, simple silence among residents to this issue, does nothing to assist in moving this and many other issues forward. It is strongly suggested, that residents, must seek restoration of democracy within the Corporation which has now been absent for some time.

An expedient resolution, continues to be sought by Dennis Tofin. However, should the Board be prepared to further pursue their most questionable objection to this claim AND AT ANY cost, Mr. Tofin then obviously has no other choice than to pursue the matter with his Appeal.

Residents have certainly commented on this matter, and openly advise that they are at a total loss, as to the absence of any relevant information being provided by the Board. Hopefully, the Board takes the above message serious and acts in a responsible manner.

It is most unfortunate, that the Board has chosen yet again, to place blame upon a resident for an incident, which recently occurred and caused serious disruption to the unit owner and her family. A report from those attending, assisting and witnessing attention to this matter though out its entirety, clearly demonstrates, that the unit owner was IN FACT, NOT RESPONSIBLE IN ANY WAY FOR THIS INCIDENT AND ANY RELATED DAMAGE.

First of all, it appears that our Board members and certainly management, have not informed themselves of our Bylaws, the Condominium Property Act and as well, the Registered Plan of the building. Given this neglect, It is apparent, that Board members are in fact, not aware of their fiduciary duties and governance responsibilities.

The Registered Plan of the building, clearly outlines the boundaries of condominium units and as well, the common areas which contain infrastructure that service the units. This includes all HVAC and plumbing components. The Registered Plan, clearly states, that the legal VERTICAL boundary of a condominium unit, ends at the concrete surface of the floor within the unit. In this instance, NO EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED THAT DEMONSTRATED ANY BLOCKAGE CAUSED FROM WITHIN THE UNIT. IN FACT THE BLOCKAGE WAS DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO BE BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE THIS RESIDENTIAL UNIT, AND IN FACT EXISTED IN THE VERTICAL COMMON AREA DRAINAGE LINE.

ALL drainage lines from toilets within the units, are situated below this legal boundary and are therefore within COMMON AREA. All repair and maintenance to the HVAC and plumbing components within these COMMON AREAS, are the responsibility of the Corporation.

The plumbing contractor who recently acted upon the emergency call to address flooding within both bathrooms of an individual unit, used a camera which upon observation, revealed no blockage in lateral drain lines. In fact, the problem proved to be a considerable blockage beyond the lateral lines below the unit. A very strong acid was required to finally remove this blockage. As such, it was clearly evident, that there was no “MISUSE OF THE SYSTEM” on the part of the owner, and in fact demonstrated that there was rather, an obvious lack of responsible maintenance, which includes regular flushing of the vertical drainage mains.

THIS REGULAR FLUSHING, HAS NOT BEEN CONDUCTED SINCE THE LAST CARETAKER CONDUCTED THIS FLUSHING A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO. This procedure involves substantial water pressure, and when conducted, is very UNMISTAKENLY LOUD within residential units. No such procedure, has been witnessed by residents, for many years.  With conduct of such preventive maintenance, and responsible address to maintained clearance of lateral drainage lines, (ALL WITHIN COMMON AREAS), such travesties can easily be prevented.

A most sincere apology is obviously warranted to the owner of unit #1002, who experienced a most traumatic experience that no owner should experience. Further, immediate and remedial action,  must be taken by the Board to ensure that all damages incurred by this owner, are appropriately addressed in an expedient fashion.

Finally, it must be noted, that there is not only one unhappy owner over THIS AND MANY OTHER ISSUES WITHIN THE BUILDING, but in fact, MANY, who find the Board’s failed response to in fact be, appalling, and most obviously,  irresponsible.

BOARD REFUSES SERVICE TO OUR MOST ELDERLY RESIDENT

On Friday morning, April 29^th, one week prior to her 100^th birthday, our most senior resident having returned home the previous evening after a stay in hospital, found her two bathrooms flooded as a result of a plugged drain below her unit. She immediately called neighbors who immediately assisted with the cleanup and arranged for a plumber to attend the unit.

The plumber arrived about noon, but the caretaker or property manager made no attempt to attend the unit, even though they were informed of the problem immediately. Finally, the caretaker stopped by for a few minutes later in the afternoon, but when the contractor attempted to seek his assistance, he was reached by phone at about 4 PM and advised that he had left the building and would be gone for the weekend.

With the contractor unable to obtain authorization from either the caretaker or management to access the problem through an adjacent wall in another unit, the contractor who was prepared to stay until the problem was resolved, was prevented from proceeding and was advised that as a result, he would have to come back on Monday. Immediate emergency access is by law to be provided for such access in condominiums. Our caretaker, management and the Board, all refused to permit such access.

So for four days, our friend was left without use of both her bathrooms. She found it necessary to spend three nights with a friend in the building. With all of her family arriving over the next few days for her birthday celebrations, she found the experience to be very disrupting and frustrating, to say the very least.

The caretaker stopped by briefly on Monday, the contractor returned and was finally able to resolve the problem. The property manager did not attend the unit until the days following, nor did a single Board member stop by to review this serious emergency situation.

The Board has since refused to respond to ongoing requests of them to cleanup and repair the damage that occurred during the contractors work. This includes the obvious need for cleaning and shampooing the carpets where foot traffic during the work period, had been tracked through the residence. This contamination is a very serious health hazard.

Such incidents have continued to happen in the building over the past several years, yet nothing has been done about it. The Board has been advised for many years now, that preventive maintenance measures must be taken immediately to prevent such issues which continue to be deferred. Until such measures are taken, the unit owners will continue to face unnecessary disruption and the Corporation will continue to incur the substantial costs of such unnecessary incidents.

As for this current issue, the Board has simply refused to respond to requests made of them over the past week, let alone act upon them in any way. Such neglect is most appalling and certainly most disrespectful to of all people, our most elderly and dear resident! Once again, it is time for residents to speak up and remind their Board of what common courtesy and respect for their neighbors is all about!

Spadina News Center 2016-05-17

PARKADE REPAIRS

The $950,000 cost was certainly NOT, as reported, within budgeted estimates which were previously reported by the Board, to be approximately $650,000. As with the heating system, this project will come in well over budget by 50% plus. Residents have been advised that the reason for the total replacement of the parkade topping was because there was structural damage. Unfortunately, the Board has refused to provide upon many requests of residents, a structural engineering report revealing evidence of any such structural damage. Residents have been clearly misinformed.

It has been suggested for quite some time, that the wish of the commercial owner, is to promote any RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURE that is specifically of benefit to them, and particularly, when the residents will be paying 55.69% of the total bill. Residents must enlighten themselves as to the nature of the MILLIONS of dollars spent by the Corporation over the past few years, and just what SECTOR of unit owners has benefited.

Unfortunately, our residential Board members, have as again suggested by numerous others, easily succumbed to the demand from the commercial sector interests.

Such projects are normally negotiated with payment provisions following completion of the project, usually within 30 to 90 days of the completion date, with a holdback provision as well. Assuming the advised 6 month construction period from May 11th,  that would imply a completion date of mid November. A reasonable provision for payment within even 30 days of completion would require payment no earlier than mid December.

Why are residents being required to PREPAY and give their cash to the Corporation early in the estimated six month construction period, far in advance of a reasonable due date of payment to the contractor, which would not be until December? Why have financing options not been made available to unit owners, which could have easily been arranged by the Corporation, whereby monthly contributions could easily be made to the Reserve Fund, taking advantage of the lowest interest rates in history? Many of our senior residents, should not be unnecessarily impacted with penalties when forced to cash in their investments, simply to accommodate the unnecessary demands made of them by the Board.

Unfortunately, it may be too late to reverse this most irresponsible decision to proceed with this project, but there is still opportunity for the Board, and particularly resident Board members, to act responsibly and respectfully, in the interest of residents, and simply arrange a financing option where contributions are made through monthly contributions to their condo fees.

Why was the newsletter distributed on May 3rd, some 6 days following the issuance date of April 27, 2016 and one day AFTER distribution of the assessment notice? This of course prevented an opportunity for residents to ask questions in response to the April 27th newsletter which should have been distributed on the same day. Unfortunately, as a result, residents were SIMPLY BILLED, and not provided with any opportunity to review the details of the project (even the limited details provided in the newsletter) prior to any decision being made. Continue reading →

Given the most premature declaration of victory by the Board of Directors, regarding the Statement of Claim filed against the Corporation, it is essential, that unit owners be advised, that the matter remains unresolved and that the matter has been appealed and therefore remains before the Courts for a final decision. The following comments have been provided by Mr. Tofin in response to misleading allegations which have been and continue to be made by the Board.

On March 31^st, 2016, the Court of Queen’s Bench heard an application by the Spadina Condominium Corporation and summarily (without hearing evidence on the claim of Dennis Tofin), dismissed his Statement of Claim. Mr. Tofin sought damages and instruction of the Court, to correct the Board’s failure to address the deferred (neglected) maintenance of certain issues to common area property of the Corporation. This neglect of duty by the Board and management, has had a detrimental impact upon his right to the use and enjoyment of his personal property and by other unit owners to theirs.

Mr. Tofin sought address to the following issues:

1. Reimbursement for $1380 assessed to the owner of #402 for new carpeting (which has never been installed on the 4th floor hallway).
2. Repair or replacement of his security monitor which is part of the buildings security system.
3. Balcony repair. Replacement of the perimeter flashing on the deck of #402 which was removed by the Corporation (in error), but never replaced. Mr. Tofin requested address to the repair of the rough surface of the deck, again as a result of the Corporation removing the concrete surface, in error, and simply replacing the concrete surface with uneven paving blocks. Mr. Tofin also sought reimbursement for his costs incurred ($200) to correct the unattended and refused maintenance and repair to the deteriorating facing above the front windows and the rust stained walls of the balcony.
4. Several parking stalls have experienced leakage of drippings from the ceiling above them.  Mr. Tofin’s parking stall for his unit #402 (Stall P5), has effectively been unusable for a long period of time, due to the leakage of the said drippings from the ceiling above, which results in permanent stain damage to any vehicle parking there. He has therefore, been unable to rent this parking stall for much of the past several years. He sought recovery of lost rental income.
5. Mr. Tofin was successful in recovering $239.66 for damages he incurred to plumbing as a result of damage caused by the Corporation’s plumbing contractor when replacing a water shut off valve.
6. Finally, Mr. Tofin included in his claim (not for damages), but a request of the Court to direct the Corporation to replace residential humidification which was in service from 1977 through to the time of the installation of the new heating system. Residents approved as a package at the same General meeting, both replacement of the humidification system and the heating system.

On April 4, 2016, the Court, on very technical grounds, decided that Mr. Tofin had no basis for his claim. The Court advised that Mr. Tofin was simply repeating the same claims he had previously submitted or had the opportunity to submit in the prior court proceedings. This is incorrect, as the issues of this claim have never been heard by a Court in the past. The Court advised that it is the unit owners who have decided what repair and maintenance is to take place, and not the Board. This is absolutely incorrect, and any responsible unit owner, knows that this is false.

The Court declared that no resident, other than Dennis Tofin, has raised any disagreement with the Board and management, regarding ANY deferred maintenance issues, and stated that this is evidenced by the fact that, there has been no inclusion of any such resident concerns in the minutes of General Meetings for the past 8 years as submitted to the Court by the Defendant.

Most residents will agree that, many requests to the Board seeking address to numerous issues, have been made over the past 8 years, but were never recorded in the minutes. There has been NO Reserve Fund Budget, outlining proposed expenditures of the Corporation, presented to unit owners for their required participation in discussion, and their LEGALLY REQUIRED APPROVAL BY FORMAL RESOLUTION. The Court went further, and declared that the unit owners of the Corporation, have in fact spoken and have agreed wholeheartedly by their silence, that THEY HAVE NO SUCH CONCERNS AS Dennis Tofin does with the failure of the Board to acknowledge and address such issues. Again, responsible unit owners will obviously find this to be a false and misleading statement.

The Court declared that unit owners have not only been provided with the opportunity to approve all expenditures of the Corporation, but have had available to them, every opportunity to even further their voice by running for election to the Board or initiating implementation of their wishes by simply and easily adopting resolutions to that effect at a General Meeting.

The vast majority of unit owners will acknowledge, that even with 95% resident support, it is impossible for ANY resident to be elected or even achieve the required support for seeking a resolution, without the support of the commercial owner. The Court has refused to recognize the true situation that exists at our condo, which is tantamount to oppression.

CONCLUSION: It was apparent, that the Board chose to accept, on behalf of the Corporation, the recommendation of the commercial owner to appoint the COMMERCIAL OWNER’S LONG TIME LEGAL COUNSEL, Naheed Bardai (MLT), to represent the Corporation in their defence of the statement of claim made by Dennis Tofin. It was clear, through the proceedings, that Mr. Bardai, primarily, represented the interests of the commercial owner versus that of the residential owners, this clearly to the detriment of residential interests.

As a result of Dennis Tofin’s claim against the Corporation, the Court has responded with a decision whereby, he is effectively being penalized by the Court as per the request of the Corporation, for making this claim, and has been ordered by the Court to pay costs of $10,000 for doing so, as opposed to reasonable compensation for damages that Mr. Tofin had sought. It should be noted, that the hearing lasted less than two hours. Given the blatent false and misleading information presented to the Court by the Spadina Board of Directors, the decision of the Court is obviously being appealed by Mr. Tofin.

Mr. Tofin has in fact attempted to speak on behalf of not only himself, but for many residents by raising these very issues of neglect by the Corporation, but was not given the opportunity to present his case. All residents are encouraged to review and think about the many specific issues that have in fact been raised on many occasions in the past, and ensure that their voices are heard very clearly by the Board. It is most unfortunate, that the Court has determined and declared, BASED UPON SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM OUR BOARD, THAT SPADINA RESIDENTS HAVE FOR SOME 8 YEARS, EXPRESSED NO SUCH CONCERNS OR ISSUES THAT REQUIRE THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD! This statement of the Board, is of course false and most misleading.

Some of the many current issues that remain unaddressed by the Board, include significant and inappropriate expenditures by the Corporation, including those for thousands of dollars of commercial owner expenses, revealed during a residents review of invoices. THE COURT HAS ACCEPTED A MOST MISLEADING SUBMISSION FROM OUR BOARD, THAT MR. TOFIN IS THE ONE AND ONLY RESIDENT WHO HAS OBJECTED TO ANY SUCH ISSUES FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS.  Obviously, most residents would disagree.

UPDATE! The Board has chosen to distribute the Court’s decision to a select number of residents, and has apparently lobbied these residents with outright slanderous allegations against Dennis Tofin for his Statement of Claim against the Corporation.

The matter is currently under appeal. As such, it is most inappropriate of a Board of Directors to make such allegations with a matter which remains outstanding before the Courts reaches a final decision. If only the Board had addressed the neglected issues, there would have been no need for such action.

Legal costs reported, are expensive, excessive, and have been left totally without scrutiny by the Board. The Board has chosen to engage the commercial owners lawyer and spend whatever it takes, to challenge anyone who objects to their negligence. Such costs, are totally unnecessary.

It is most interesting, that  in early 2015, a Board member asked Mr. Tofin if his proposed claim was open for discussion and negotiation. Mr. Tofin’s response, was yes, certainly! That was the last relative communication ever received from the Board.

DAMAGE TO CONDO OWNER PROPERTY FROM LEAKING ROOFS OR PARKADE COVERS, IT’S ALL THE SAME!

Condo owner shouldn’t have to pay for damage from leaky roof: Hyman

By: Gerry Hyman Condo Law Columnist, Published on Sat Mar 05 2016

Any responsible resident who has noticed that the curtains in the elevator have been up for over two months, will tell you that it is very much a disgrace to our building!

Management, the caretaker and of course the Board, all deserve hearing some of the many well deserved comments about their disrespect for even the most moderate standards of care. It really does say something about a primarily absent and most dysfunctional Board that couldn’t care less about the interests of their fellow residents. The only response to date has basically been, WAIT UNTIL WE ARE BACK IN THE SPRING! Dysfunctional Board? Of course! Residents deserve much better representation than that!

We can no longer tolerate an absentee Board, which has proven to be to the detriment of our residents. As is common practice with properly governed condominium associations, should any Board member be physically absent for 3 consecutive monthly Board meetings, they shall be dismissed from the Board. This is obviously a most responsible measure of responsible governance, and is certainly in the best interest of residents.

Unfortunately, it continues to be a very reasonable option, the need to bring in qualified candidates for our Board of Directors, from outside the Corporation, in order to provide willing and responsible Board representation, that is not unduly influenced by the current controlling interest of the Corporation. It is most unfortunate, that residents must be continuously reminded, that our Corporation is very unique, in that two individuals, one commercial and one residential owner, dictate not only who will be elected to the Board but also, DICTATE EVERY DECISION OF THE CORPORATION unless a special resolution is required. No reasonably minded resident, would permit their name to be considered as a nominee, given these most unjust circumstances, which are clearly most damaging to all residential unit owners.

As long as residents refuse to acknowledge this FACT, they will continue to be subjected to the many continuing breaches of both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act. It is obviously the silence of these residents, that prohibits any meaningful address and resolution to the many serious issues facing the interests of both they and their fellow residents.

THE IRRESPONSIBLE SILENCE OF RESIDENTS MUST BE BROKEN! Continuing requests for your cheques DOES IN FACT REQUIRE YOUR APPROVAL! Yet residents simply bow to these requests for their money, which is very much unlawful as per our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act. Your PREAPPROVAL of any Reserve Fund Expenditure (Elevators) was required, YET NO RESPECT OR REQUEST FOR YOUR APPROVAL WAS MADE BY THE BOARD.  Stand up for your rights! Or, simply continue to be taken advantage of!

People visiting the building have asked if our residential elevator is our FREIGHT elevator? Many residents have finally conceded and responded, yes it is! In addition to disrespect, it is very clear that management, the caretaker, and the Board, are all being very LAZY in performing their duties. Such practises are obviously unacceptable and very damaging to the interests of our residents.

The commercial elevator has not been permitted for use by common area mechanical contractors for their access and FREIGHT usage for a number of years. Contractors  serving residential units over the past several months, have used the elevator for FREIGHT purposes on very few days, yet the curtains remain up. The caretaker has been demanding a $25 fee for placing the curtains for “freight” use of the elevator, yet the curtains never come down. Why are residents subject to such neglect and inappropriate conduct on the part of the caretaker/management/and the Board?

Yet, the curtains remain in place, very much in disrespect of even the most moderate standards of residents. One must really sympathize with all residents who are embarrassed with the reaction of their guests that are repeatedly subjected to a most disconcerting impression on not only one but repeated visits. The commercial owner of course, could not care less. Sympathy is extended to those currently attempting to sell their condominium unit.. Potential purchasers are obviously, very much turned off with such building governance practices and disrespect for residents.

It is time residents speak up and demand that the Board is the responsible party and insist upon their immediate address to this yet again, another failure to respect the interests of our residents. For most of us, our living standards have certainly proven to be much more demanding, than those of our Board members. Residents were forced to participate in the $350,000 cost of the elevator replacement which did not receive the required support or even an opportunity to vote, by residents, whose approval is required by both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act. Yet, it was residents, who bore the vast majority of not only the cost, but also the unnecessary, excessive,  inconvenience of this project.

Residents continue to bare the major inconvenience and interruptions of the misuse of their elevator via the Board’s unfortunate and irresponsible directive to permit its inappropriate use. Unfortunately, our resident Board members, continue to bow to the preferences and demands of their fellow commercial Board members on such matters.

There are those residents who unfortunately, will accept in silence their acceptance to such Board conduct, for various reasons, including those that have conflicting interests with the Corporation. Their silent voice, will simply be accepted as unsupportive of their fellow residents in seeking address to the issues referenced above.

It’s been a long winter with no meaningful response from the Board. The President has apparently agreed with the WAIT UNTIL SPRING and return of the snow bird position of the Board.  Do we wait for April, May or June for address to the many issues expressed by residents?

NATURAL GAS PRICES– It is very concerning that the Board would enter into a contract for natural gas with an alternate supplier to Sask Energy, when it was clearly known by the public at the time, that a reduction in natural gas rates from Sask Energy was projected for January 1, 2016. Spadina Towers will unfortunately not be experiencing this reduction in rates because of this unfortunate decision of the Board. Once again, why is the Board committing residents to such unnecessary costs without any consultation with them?

FINANCIALS- Why is the Board no longer providing any breakdown of expenditures, particularly when they are above budget? Why has a balance sheet and statement of the Reserve Fund not been presented? Residents can not be expected to simply take the word of the Board without being fully informed. With well over one million dollars spent on HVAC in the recent past, residents want to know why HVAC expenses are so high.

It is very interesting that the Board blames increased hot water usage for the supposed “spike” in water expense. How was this irrational correlation determined? The claims of widely fluctuating city water supply pressure are simply false and misleading, and there is no need to “set valves” to compensate. This claim is also irrational and as has been acknowledged to be so, by an engineer with the City of Saskatoon.

BUILDING OPERATIONS- It is unfortunate that the Board’s solution to the domestic hot water problem is simply to keep buying “spare” water heaters. There is obviously a design flaw and provisions to address such issues should have been included in the contract with the engineer where the responsibility lies. What assurances, guarantees and warranties were included in the contract with the engineer? It is certainly not reasonable for the Board to simply keep buying new water heaters at the expense of residents. It is however, their responsibility to hold the engineer accountable.

The fob system has provided NO change to security in the Residential section. NO change was ever necessary. The system was simply added at the request of the commercial owner who clearly wanted the system for convenience of their tenants. The residents Board members, simply bowed to their wishes.

Residents did not vote in favour of signage for BOTH THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS. Residents did vote, based upon a formal written motion, in favour of “A” sign identifying SPADINA TOWERS. The commercial owner already has sufficient signage. Any proposal for this new sign should be presented to unit owners at a general meeting for their review.

PARKING REMIDIATION- Why has the Board rejected all requests from residents for confirmation of structural damage in a detailed report from a structural engineer. Such response is very troubling and could lead to serious legal issues. Further, why has the Board not sought the approval of this project from the unit owners at a General Meeting as is required by the Act? The Act clearly requires all reserve fund expenditures to be presented in a reserve fund budget for the approval of unit owners. A further resolution approving a responsible plan for inclusion in reserve fund monthly condo fees is required as well. A General Meeting is of course required as soon as possible, in order to address these outstanding issues as is required by the Act. Yes, approval of residents is required.

As the Board has chosen to include as a news item the Statement of Claim against the Corporation by Dennis Tofin for “various damages to his properties” and would be a cost to the Corporation, the Board is advised that they could have easily addressed these damages for which they are responsible, long ago and at a far more reasonable cost. Unfortunately, they have refused to even respond. It should also be noted, that the counsel for the commercial owner has once again been retained by the Corporation rather than the Corporation’s own, long time counsel. Conflicting interests continue.

It is most unfortunate, that many of the serious issues facing this Corporation, could have been addressed at the TOWN HALL MEETINGS that the Board suggested, yet have since rejected. Residents find this this response of secrecy to be very disturbing, and yet once again ask the Board to conduct THEIR SUGGESTED TOWN HALL MEETING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

The Board advised the AGM in October, that a review of a proposal received from Sask Tel for providing TV and internet service to the building was far more competitive than what was available from Shaw Cable. This statement was made without even receiving a formal quotation from Shaw.

In November, it was revealed that Shaw requested a from a Board member, access to the building in order to prepare their proposal for services.

The Board member rejected this request and advised that he was away and would not be reviewing this matter until he returned in the spring following his winter vacation. When Shaw requested the name of another Board member or contact to permit them access, they were advised that he was the only one qualified to review the matter and rather rudely, rejected any further inquiries from the Shaw representative.

This Board member, has demonstrated a bias in favour of Sask Tel service, even without permitting Shaw reasonable access in order to provide a quotation. Whether there is some sort of conflicting interest here or not, his actions were very irresponsible and clearly not what is expected by residents from a Board member. To refuse to address this matter until spring, is also very irresponsible. Unit owners do not need an absentee Board member who refuses to conduct his responsibilities and delay such an important matter, solely for his own convenience.

I would suggest that an apology be made to Shaw for this most disrespectful behavior, and allow them access to the building so that they can provide their proposal. Residents do not have to wait until the return of an absentee Board member.

The attached document which follows, is a request to the Board for their response, to some of many issues that have been expressed by residents. It is very much in a resident’s best interest to review these issues and determine for themselves, if this rejection by the Board to respond, may in fact, have damaging impact upon you, and particularly, the financial impact or damage upon the value of your condominium.

The real estate marketplace, has demonstrated clear resistance from those considering a purchase of a unit at Spadina Towers. The policy of the Board’s practice of declaring unlawful, SURPRISE AND ILLEGAL CASH CALLS to fund Reserve Fund expenditures could certainly frighten prospective purchasers away.  This policy of the Corporation, and its’ obvious uncertainty of future assessments, having been revealed to numerous prospective purchasers in 2015, can only have a negative impact on any decision to purchase a condominium at Spadina Towers. Qualified Real Estate agents, have advised, that it is most unlikely that a resale will take place at Spadina Towers until such time as this matter has been addressed.

Condo purchasers only feel comfortable with a reasonable forecast of declared monthly fees, even if they reflect higher than normal fees for a LIMITED AND FIXED PERIOD, subject to a fully transparent declaration.
It is unlikely, that there will be any opportunity for a condo owner at Spadina Towers to sell their unit without being impacted with a significant discount to the selling price of their unit.

What is the required remedy to assist unit owners with realizing REASONABLE resale market value? What is required, is a formalized plan of the Corporation to first of all, identify those Reserve Fund Expenditures that are ACTUALLY REQUIRED within the forecast period, and to establish and present, a responsible RESERVE FUND BUDGET to all unit owners, as is required by our Bylaws and the Act for their CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL. This budget, not only requires the approval of unit owners, but as well, a reasonable funding program approved by unit owners, through regular monthly Reserve Fund Contribution Fees, which must also be PRESENTED TO, AND APPROVED BY UNIT OWNERS.

There is no need for unpredictable “SURPRISE” CASH CALLS, if a responsible funding program respecting residents is duly presented for approval. Unilateral Board resolutions to simply implement CASH CALL FUNDING, IS IN FACT UNLAWFUL.
The silence of residents relating to many issues of the Corporation, must end. It is up to residents to now act responsibly, and stand up for their legal rights, before they simply succumb to further undue persecution via UNNECESSARY DEMANDS FOR ANOTHER CHEQUE.

For those who have chosen in the past to not voice their thoughts, the time has come to stand up and reject this unlawful conduct and its impact upon your property value. Do not allow the Board to simply take your money without receiving response to your questions and concerns. You have now been provided with the provisions of the law, which clearly demonstrate that you have been improperly treated in the past. It is up to you to reject any further such treatment and stand up for yourself.

Failure to respond, will simply result in further SURPRISE CASH CALLS AND damage to your very valued  property. It is time to speak up or at least ask someone to do so on your behalf.

SPADINA NEWS CENTER
(spadinanewscenter.com)

Request for Response from the BOD 2015-12-20

Some excellent advice for the SCC Board of Directors.

It has now been several years since the replacement of the residential hallway carpets. The selection of the new carpet has proven to simply be, a very problematic decision, both from a replacement cost perspective as well as, a substantial increase in required maintenance costs (should they be performed). Other replacement options with confirmed quotations were provided by residents, but were rejected by the “committee representing residents”.

Residents should be advised, that there are those proposing NEW CEILING AND LIGHTING FIXTURES in the residential hallways. This cost to residents will be very substantial, and with more, UNDISCLOSED AT PRESENT, proposed CASH CALLS currently (and unlawfully) being contemplated by the Board for other UNAPPROVED CAPITAL AND RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES, it is clearly time for residents to object to this unlawful conduct and express their participation.

The hallway carpets, as have predicted, proven to be easily stained during all seasons, and the failure of the caretaker to shampoo the carpet on a regular basis in order to address this problem via regular, responsible maintenance, has resulted in great disappointment. The hallway carpets have proven to be a great embarrassment to residents! A common question among residents continues to arise; why has the caretakers rejection of responsibility to maintain these carpets, including regular shampooing, been accepted by management and the Board? The continuing question of residents, yet repeatedly rejected by the Board remains. Why does the Board continue to unlawfully, reject access to resident requests, for a copy of the caretakers contract?

The violations on the part of the Board regarding Reserve Fund Expenditures are many and residents are totally unaware of them. An example: the commercial owner has demanded that residents participate in the cost of THEIR IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO THEIR ELEVATOR CAB.

The request for immediate replacement of BOTH residential and commercial elevators, was made by the commercial owner. The provincial inspectors deemed before the replacement, that a total required expenditure of less than $40,000, was required to place the elevators into optimum condition. These reports were withheld from residents and the Board of Directors was unduly influenced by the commercial owner to support a total and unnecessary replacement of both the residential and commercial elevators. This resulted in a yet to be determined total cost, which has currently accumulated to an estimated $350,000 to date. This action of the Board, to appease the commercial owners demand to disregard any such QUALIFIED AND PROFESSIONAL REPORT, report, has resulted in an immediate and unquestioned declaration, that the residential Board members would agree with the expenditure, with no regard to consideration of the requirement of PRE ESTIMATED COST PROPSALS AND ESTIMATES. The comments of the elevator inspection authorities, who provided a much different recommendation at a substantially reduced cost estimate ($40,000), were totally rejected by the commercial owner who obviously, unduly influenced their fellow residential Board members. These residential Board members, simply succumbed to the wishes of the commercial owner, and went along with this very detrimental decision to incur the $350,000 plus expenditure on the elevators.

Residents have enough to be concerned about, without simply permitting the Board to continue with such unlawful expenditures using their money!

This is no time for silence. It is time, to recognize your rights as a condominium owner. It is time for you to speak up and voice your objection to spending your money without your say.

Residents Meeting Report 2015-11-22

Residents are now able to confirm the facts on their own, of comparative energy costs (and effectively consumption) by reviewing the energy analysis included in the previous post.

Some of us have been severely harmed by the Board’s irresponsible, false and misleading statements of ongoing savings in energy costs. It is therefore requested that fellow residents bare with ongoing efforts to finally obtain a truthful response from the Board which would correct their misrepresentations. The Board can certainly provide responsible address to this matter, simply by providing reasonable response to the following questions, which were yet again asked of them very recently:

1. What is the (Boards) claimed net reduction in electrical energy consumption and cost from 2010 (the year of the new heating system installation) through to each and every year subsequent to 2010?
2. The Board advised the court in April of 2012, that in the first year following installation of the new heating system in 2010, TOTAL NET ENERGY COSTS decreased by more than $44,000. The Board had promised savings of $40,000 per year with the new installation. The judge accepted this number, refusing to acknowledge an objection to this number which included a proposed presentation of the facts. The facts clearly demonstrate that there was  an INCREASE in net energy costs AND THERE WAS NO SUCH SAVING, AS WAS FALSELY PRESENTED TO THE COURT. Please refer to the facts included in the energy report within the previous post. The Board is asked to respond to the following question: What evidence do you have, that provides confirmation of this $44,000 plus declared saving in that first year which was submitted as evidence to the Court?
3. What are the net realized energy savings declared to both Federal and Provincial Energy Programs, where there was a conditional and required submission of evidence of these declared savings, demonstrating net energy cost savings actually realized? A copy of the original application and any further communications with these agencies is requested.

Residents are asked to support the numerous requests made to the Board for their response to these questions which have been totally rejected to date. Once again, this ongoing demonstration of secrecy on the part of the Board, is totally unacceptable. Lack of transparency remains a very serious issue.

Dennis M. Tofin

The Board continues to remind residents of energy savings contributed to the installation of the new heating system in late 2010. I personally have for some time, been prepared to provide an analysis supported by the facts, where the Board’s declaration of savings, has proven to be very misleading.

In order to clarify once and for all, the facts of the matter, I have prepared the attached report which includes ACTUAL COSTS of energy, comparing the period 2006-2009 prior to the 2010 installation, to the following period, 2011-1014. Residents can confirm these numbers on their own, by simply referring to the financial statements for each of these years.

With these numbers, any resident is able to apply the impact of published energy rate adjustments over these comparative periods, and come up with exactly the same analysis. This analysis is as follows:

SCC Energy Cost Summary 2015-11-13

It is important to note that, the Board has most recently advised me, that I will not be permitted access to our City Electrical account and will no longer have access to OUR account data. The board refuses to review or even acknowledge any energy analysis prepared by others. They have strongly objected to the efforts of anyone attempting to disclose the facts which have proven to be unacceptable and rather embarassing to the Board. As a result, energy costs going forward will simply be monitored through a continuing review of data from our financial statements and any impact of published rate adjustments.

Dennis M. Tofin

SPADINA TOWERS

NOTICE OF RESIDENTS MEETING

To Be Held at 1:30 P.M, Thursday, November 19^th

4^th Floor Meeting Room

This meeting will provide residents with an opportunity to discuss the many issues which were not permitted for discussion at the Annual General Meeting.

The primary issue which urgently requires the attention of residents is that of the Corporation’s finances which are in a rather troubling state. The legally required resolutions of unit owners to approve, first the Reserve Fund Budget, secondly, the appropriate monthly fee contributions, and thirdly, appointment of an Auditor, were not presented nor permitted for discussion at the AGM.

In addition to addressing the above, this meeting will provide residents with an opportunity to ask questions, present their views, opinions and participate in an open and informal discussion. The meeting will ensure sufficient time for participation of all those attending.