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