Considering the absence of audited financial statements for the past several years, and a number of serious concerns of residents, a written request was made to the board prior to the Annual General Meeting, to address these concerns by acknowledging this written request at the meeting, and provide assurance that this information would be provided within thirty days following the meeting.

No such acknowledgement or assurance let alone mention, was provided at the AGM. The board is once again reminded that the Bylaws of the Corporation and the Condominium Property Act require disclosure of all information that was requested in this written request, as it is all most relevant to the questions and concerns of unit owners.

The refusal of the board to recognize the Corporation’s legal obligation to provide an audit and make available, this requested and  relevant information, is of very serious concern to those residents that do in fact require such information in responsible management of their personal finances.

This request for information was made to the Board prior to the Annual General Meeting and is referenced below:

Request for Information October 9, 2013

The Annual General Meeting held on October 10, 2013, has once again raised questions regarding the need for each director of the Corporation to provide a signed CODE OF ETHICS disclosure statement in the format referenced below.

These signed statements from each director of the Corporation, should be presented at the next board of directors meeting, with acknowledgment of their receipt recorded in the minutes. They must also be made available for viewing by unit owners upon request. This document includes suggested provisions provided by the Canadian Condominium Institute and is commonly used by many condominium associations across Canada.

Provision of this statement by board members will assist in addressing the questions and concerns that unit owners may have regarding the conduct of directors including conflict of interest issues. It is very unusual and very questionable for directors of any Corporation to refuse to provide this disclosure. Refusal to do so, will of course only validate the reason for the questions and concerns of unit owners. Should this be the case, then it is obviously necessary for a director to, as an alternative, submit a written notice of resignation. This required disclosure document is referenced below.

Code-of-Ethics PDF 2013-10-07

The board once again at the October 10, 2013 AGM, refused to allow unit owners to appoint an auditor as is required in our bylaws. Without inviting any participation from those attending, the treasurer immediately following his financial report made a motion to the effect that THE BOARD WILL MAKE ANY SUCH DECISION. This is most inappropriate conduct on the part of a treasurer and board member of the Corporation. The other board members supported this motion and in turn displayed a lack of understanding or respect of the bylaws as well.

Considering the above and the obvious resistance to responding to questions of the financial report, residents have every reason to question this behavior of their board. Why does the board continue to make every effort to prevent the appointment of an Auditor at Annual General Meetings? Many unit owners find this behavior to be very unusual and raises a great many questions and concerns. One must certainly wonder why current board members who adamantly supported an audited report for many years, have now bowed to the position of others on the board who oppose an audit. With million dollar projects in the very recent past and being considered in the near future, there has never been a more appropriate time for an audit.

In the last few years, the board has unnecessarily spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of other peoples money. Yet, this board continues to not only breach provisions of the Bylaws requiring the appointment of an Auditor at the Annual General Meeting, but fails as well to demonstrate respect or responsibility for the Corporation’s finances. The excuse of trying to save money is not a valid reason to refuse an Audit, is obviously very irresponsible, and further, gives good reason for serious questions and concerns when hearing this excuse time and time again.

Any attempt of the board  to make such an appointment without the required participation of all unit owners at a general meeting can of course not be legally recognized by unit owners of the Corporation.

Please refer to the following which was posted on May 27, 2013.

SCC Board Refuses to Appoint Auditor

At the AGM held on Thursday, October 10th, the board misinformed the meeting in stating that front window repair or replacement is the responsibility of the unit owner. A motion was made requesting that the Corporation replace front windows at the buildings expense, wherever necessary and as soon as possible. Supporting reference to the Bylaws, the Condominium Property Act and the Registered Building Plan was also provided. With grave concern and question, relevant provisions in the Bylaws, Condominium Property Act and the Registered Plan of the building were met with the boards rejection and refusal to acknowledge or respect them.

Further, the board declared that no windows have ever been replaced by the building and that this expense has always and will continue to be the responsibility of the unit owner. The boards position and conduct in addressing this matter at the AGM was very misleading to say the least and in direct contravention of the law.

Please review the attached  2005 AGM minutes which provides THE TRUTH to this matter. It is noted that five residential windows were replaced along with one commercial front window at the buildings expense. The commercial damage was the result of vandalism and the residential damages were the result of structural stress. For any owner who wishes replacement of their windows which are not damaged, it is obviously their own responsibility.

The supporting documents to the motion made at the AGM are available in a previous posting on this site (May 26, 2013). It is suggested that they be reviewed as well. It is very interesting that current board members who were on the board in 1995, as well as other attending owners at this AGM who were also members of that board, have no recollection of these facts and the truth of the matter, but obviously support this most irresponsible position of this board. This most questionable conduct is without question, one of very grave concern and will not be accepted by any responsible unit owner.

AGM 2005 FNL

CRA BOD 2013