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.