The above photos (click to enlarge) were taken in the summer of 2004. Back then, the lawn was mowed twice a week, watered daily if needed, and kept clean of weeds, all clearly the responsibility of the caretaker. Hanging baskets, as seen in these photos, added so much to the patio for many years. The commercial owner at that time, provided the furniture and umbrellas. The patio was enjoyed by everyone. All unit owners took great pride in this most admired and respected street appeal of the building.

How things have changed!

Over the past several years, the front lawn has become, possibly the most unsightly on Spadina Crescent. The patio has become a deserted and forgotten place. The pride and respect of an owner is often judged by the street appeal of his property. In the case of a condominium, such judgement is based upon a reflection of management and the board of directors.

Now, we have apparently contracted a WEED SERVICE COMPANY to address our ongoing neglected weed problem. Residents are of course wondering, WHY IS OUR $60,000 PLUS CARETAKER NOT PROVIDING THIS SERVICE? Obviously, it is time to take a look at the caretakers contract. There are far too many questions of residents as to the provisions of this contract. A copy of this contract is hereby requested via email to any resident requesting this information.

The building, known as SPADINA TOWERS for many years, is lacking identity and requires prominent marks of recognition. Prominent quality signage displaying SPADINA TOWERS would provide this recognition and also much needed decor to the front patio.

It is obvious what must be done. It is up to all unit owners to voice the need for immdediate action on the part of management and the board.

The SCC Board of Directors at the last Annual General Meeting held on October 3, 2012, refused to permit discussion or recognize a motion to appoint an auditor. This apppointment is a requirement of the bylaws as follows:

ARTICLE EIGHT
THE AUDITOR FOR THE CORPORATION
Section 8.1 Appointment of Auditor

The unit owners and first mortgagees entitled to vote shall at each annual meeting of unit owners appoint an auditor to hold office until the close of the next annual meeting. If, however, in successive years an auditor is not appointed at an annual meeting, the incumbent auditor continues in office until his successor is appointed.

Notwithstanding the above, the unit owners, first mortgagees or other persons entitled to vote may, by special resolution, resolve not to appoint an auditor. Such resolution is valid only until the next succeeding annual meeting of unit owners.

Considering that the board incurred total costs on behalf of unit owners of approximately ONE MILLION DOLLARS for the new heating system installation, hundreds of thousands more than necessary, residents are fully entitled to a formal written report from the Auditor providing confirmation of detailed and final costs of this project.

Further, the board has yet to provide residents with an analysis of actual versus projected related operating costs following this installation. This information must be also be included and confirmed in this Audited report.

Residents have paid the majority of these much higher than necessary capital and operating expenditures and are subject to the potential liability for further unnecessary costs. If the board expects residents to be responsible for and participate in any further such costs, it must demonstrate at least some form of accountability. That of course must start with an audited financial report for the year ended June 30, 2013.

The board is hereby requested to ensure that accountant Gerry Robinson provide an Audited financial report for the year ended June 30, 2013, as per the bylaws of our Corporation.

In the Condo News report of March 14, 2013, the following was stated: “Window replacement policy will follow that of the Condo Act, which means owners will replace their windows at their own cost”.

The board has clearly misinterpreted the provisions of the Condominium Act in this regard which read as follows:

C-26.1 CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY, 1993 (2) With respect to condominium plans registered before the coming into force of this section, the common boundary of one unit described in a condominium plan with another unit or with common property is an imaginary line drawn equidistant between the two lateral surfaces of the floor, wall or ceiling, as the case may be, unless the condominium plan stipulates otherwise. 1993, c.C-26.1, s.8..

The condominium plan does in fact stipulate otherwise: Unit Boundaries and Areas For Levels 1-13

(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 lines of walls (where indicated)”.

In other words, place your hand against the window. Whatever is beyond your hand is common property and the responsibility of the Corporation.

On the registered plan of the building, these front window walls are clearly illustrated. Window walls are very common in high rise buildings. Over many years in this building, the Corporation has always respected the bylaws and the Condominium Plan whereby windows have been replaced by the Corporation as a common area expense.

The minutes of the August 30, 2005 board meeting clearly outline expenditures from the Common Expense Fund including one commercial and five residential front windows. The cause of damage to the commercial window was vandalism whereas the damage to residential windows was deemed to be stress related.

Shortly after this board meeting, the Annual General Meeting was held on September 26, 2005. In the Chairman’s remarks, the following is stated:

“The building’s front windows are repaired by the condominium corporation”.

At the board meeting of July 15, 2008, the following was stated under general business: “There was discussion on caulking the balcony windows. Board feels that any capable contractor should be able to perform this job. Board requested that Colliers call Lydale, Regal and Wells construction companies to obtain quotes. Ten floors need caulking.”

Further building committee reports specifically reiterating the need for management to attend to the repair and preventive maintenance of the front windows and above facing, were presented over the following year. Unfortunately, no repair or maintenance has taken place since.

In the “Building Management and Operations” report of May 15, 2009, the following statement is made:

“The following are some current matters requiring the immediate action of management: A quote should be obtained for repair to facing above the front windows and related work in a number of units”. Again, nothing has ever been done. This deferred maintenance will prove to be very costly.

In May of 2012, unit owners were provided with an updated handbook. The following statement is included in this handbook:

“Common areas including the lobby, hallways,exterior walls, doors and WINDOWS, hallway doors, balcony floors and walls, laundry rooms, elevators and stairwells, indoor parking garage and the building structure, are owned by the Condominium Corporation and are the responsibility the board”.

As is the case with this building, many window wall systems still rely on a prime seal (caulking and tape) to keep out the weather and minimize deflection. The problem is sealants crack and deteriorate over time, causing moisture problems and the potential failure of the window unit.

Finally, the following excerpt from a recognized Canadian legal publication, clearly endorses and supports this common practice in other provincial jurisdictions as well.

By: Gerry Hyman Condo Law Columnist, Published on Fri Apr 22 2011

Q: My highrise condo has a large double glass window. The interior pane cracked and a contractor advised that the crack was not due to misuse but to building stress. Our declaration states that the maintenance and repair of windows is the obligation of the corporation. The board maintains that the broken window is my responsibility because the crack is in the interior rather that the exterior pane. Is the board correct?

A: The two panes are part of the window and in virtually every highrise building windows are a common element and repairs are the obligation of the corporation. The fact that the crack is in the interior pane is not relevant.

In conclusion, the board must recognize the Corporation’s responsibility and obligation to provide regular maintenance on these front window walls. This maintenance has been deferred far too long and must be addressed immediately. Any required maintenance, repair or replacement is clearly the responsibility of the Corporation.

In a report to unit owners in April of 2009, a recommendation was presented to unit owners for the installation of a new hot water heating system versus new steam boilers. It was stated that the installation would result in annual operating cost savings of $35,800. With these substantial savings, it was projected that a recovery of the investment or “payback” would take 7.35 years.

Unfortunately, the board adopted this recommendation, and proceeded without an appropriate resolution of unit owners. This installation did in fact proceed without any respect or recognition of the proposal previously approved by unit owners which did in fact receive the necessary support as is required by the bylaws.

As we now know, this “alternative proposal” did in fact NOT result in promised annual savings of $35,800. In fact an ANNUAL INCREASE of approximately $17,000 in energy costs has been incurred in each of the last two calender years, 2011, and 2012.

There will obviously be no opportunity for the promised “payback” or recovery of this investment. In fact, Spadina Towers has incurred an accumulated increase in energy costs since the installation of the new hot water heating system of approximately $50,000 .

It should be of interest to residents that in April of 2012, this unfortunate decision was challenged in a court of law. The court wrongfully accepted this misleading position of the board of directors, that the corporation saved $42,000 in total net energy costs in the first year following installation of the new hot water heating system. Even with a submission of all monthly energy cost receipts supporting the ACTUAL and most dramatic cost INCREASES, the court proceeded without review of this factual evidence and accepted  the purported savings endorsed by Mr. Goldstein. In fact, the court dismissed the case with a judgement accepting this false and misleading information provided by the Spadina Condominium Corporation and its board of directors.

It is hoped that residents will recognize this injustice and support a request for a detailed analysis of energy costs from the board including receipts substantiating this declared saving of $42,000. Hopefully, some of our astute, responsible and principled residents are prepared to support this request.

Had this project proceeded as originally approved, not only would residents have two thirds of their cash contribution still in their bank account, but they would of course be realizing substantial savings in operating costs. There would certainly have been no need for such a large cash contribution, a depleted reserve fund, and an increase in condominium fees.

There are very obvious lessons to be learned from this most unfortunate fiasco. The board must only be permitted to proceed with such projects after demonstrating that they have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the matter and of course, must obtain the required support of unit owners as is stated in the bylaws of the Corporation.

Further, the board must be held accountable for the serious impact of the unneccessary cost burden placed upon unit owners. An audited financial report is an obvious starting point.

At the last Annual General Meeting held on October 3, 2012, the board was asked if the Corporation held a membership in the Northern Saskatchewan Chapter of the Canadian Condominium Institute. Residents had requested this membership on many occassions. The response of the board was; some said yes, some said no, and the others didn’t know.

The fact is, the board has refused to purchase a membership in the association for a number of years. The benefits provided to members of this association are many. For example, members are informed of legislative changes to the Condominium Act whereas non members may never hear of these changes.

The “Sector” additions to the Act in 2009 were never made available to residents of Spadina Towers. This legislation was very relevant to the serious issues of the Corporation and could have not only helped resolve these issues, but could have saved thousands of dollars in the unneccessary expense of litigation. Serious questions remain.

Association members have also been advised  of  proposed changes to the Act regarding the new legislation requiring Condominium Corporation audits. Without a membership, SCC owners have relied on their board to provide this information. The SCC board however, has chosen to conceal this information and continue to reject the many requests for an audit of our year end financial report. Residents are obviously entitled to an explanation.

There are many other benefits including educational opportunities for board members to become more knowledgeable and effective in governance and responsibilities to their unit owners. There is certainly no valid reason for not obtaining this membership and must therefore be purchased in the interest of unit owners. Considering the provision of very useful information to unit owners by this assocation, it is clear that this membership is very much necessary.

At past Annual General Meetings of Spadina Condominium Corporation, requests have been made of directors to provide a written disclosure of any potential conflict of interest issues. On every occassion, the board has refused to do so.

It is the responsibility and obligation of all board members to respect all provisions of the Condominium Act, Interpretations Act and the Corporation’s bylaws regarding conflict of interest issues.

In order to ensure full transparency of this issue, a Directors’ Code of Ethics has been prepared and is attached. It is requested of each each director of the Corporation to sign this document prior to the next General Meeting and submit these disclosures to the meeting. Failure on the part of any board member to acknowledge and sign this declaration will of course provide validation of unit owner concerns in this regard.

Code-of-Ethics PDF 2013

For your convenience, a copy of the SCC handbook is attached.

Spadina Condominium Handbook.pdf

The cracks on the front patio of Spadina Towers (as shown in these May, 2013 photos), were repaired in 2010, in an attempt to address long term deferred maintenance. Obviously, both the product and workmanship has proven to be defective.

No followup to this work has been conducted since and the unfortunate consequences are obvious. There is of course the very same neglect of the required followup maintenance and followup treatment of cracks on other areas of the parkade surface that was conducted about ten years ago.

The recommended address to the problem at that time included a sustained annual maintenance program.  The contractor was VECTOR CONSTUCTION LTD. However, no such maintenance has taken place for a number of years. This is very clearly, a contravention of the bylaws as referenced below.

Section 10.1 Maintenance and Repair
The Corporation shall keep in a state of good and serviceable repair and properly maintain the common property.

What are “Capital Repairs”? A repair is considered to be a capital repair when it is undertaken to improve or extend the normal economic life of an existing structure. No deductions are available for a capital repair; it will instead be added to the cost of the property. A Capital Repair is really a subset of “Capital Improvements,” which are part of the larger category of “Capital Expenses.”

What is a “Capital Improvement”? Capital Improvements include Capital Repairs, but also the addition of a permanent structural improvement or the restoration of some aspect of a property that will either enhance the property’s overall value. Again, the cost of a Capital Improvement cannot be deducted from income. It must be added to the cost of the property.

IN ANY EVENT, THEY ARE BOTH CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.href=’http://www.retailrealestatelaw.com/archives/352′>CAM and Capital Expenses — Retail Real Estate Law Ruminations

Thus, the installation at Spadina Towers of the new hot water heating system and related components, was clearly a capital expenditure. The proposition of a replacement of the entire parkade surface structure, would of course also be a capital expenditure. A special resolution of unit owners would certainly be required to approve of such a project.

SCC Owners List.pdf

Condo-Policy-consultation-paper-2011.pdf

MWM_2011_CLE4B_Bardai_Smith.pdf

C26-1.pdf

C26-1R2.pdf

The attached are move in/out regulations.

SCC moving.pdf