Over the past few years, residents have attempted to advise our Board of Directors of their serious concerns relating to many different issues which have been negatively impacting them. Residents have participated in meetings with an objective to identify and seek address to many of these issues of common interest and concern for presentation to the Board.

The Board has rejected many requests of them to provide any meaningful response or respect for these many serious grievances. It is very clear that given the nature of the many complaints, residents did not realize the extent of such conduct of the board and how it could influence their lives while residing in this building.

It is very troubling and of grave concern to residents, that when they have attempted to remind the Board of even minimal legal obligations on the part of the Board, the Board immediately disputes the resident inquiry and any need for response.  In fact, they most often, immediately place blame on any resident for questioning the Board.

Residents find this very disturbing when their fellow residents with board positions use their influence to punish THEIR fellow residents with whom they disagree. The impact upon residents of the self bias and many conflicting interests of the commercial owner and management upon resident owners has created a very serious situation in this building and residents continue to become exceedingly alarmed by this situation.

The complete absence of even minimally required standards, training or even reasonable orientations for our board members and further the lack of independent foresight, is clearly apparent in the board’s  control of this building. Further, it is a most serious matter when our resident board members succumb to the direction of the commercial owner.

Those from outside of our Corporation who have observed and understand the serious nature of  our predicament, continue to advise that there is no other condominium corporation  in our province that can benefit more from the establishment of Sector representation than our building. Both address by the CCI (Canadian Condominium Institute) and recent legislative amendments to the Condominium Property Act,  have now enabled Sector representation in condominiums.  Establishing a residential sector and commercial sector in our building would provide for a very meaningful and democratic representation of these two special interest components, residential and commercial, who obviously have varied interests. Directors would simply be democratically nominated and elected, not effectively appointed as they are now. Basically, we would continue with a common board of directors, but would allow a democratic representation of both sectors on the board. Residents would nominate and elect their representation to the board of directors and the commercial owners would do the same. Democratic representation would then, truly be established.

This solution as is outlined in the Condominium Property Act, provides a most responsible, respectful and meaningful solution to the serious conflict that has existed in this building for far too long. It clearly provides a solution which can be easily accepted by any sector of owners truthfully seeking a democratic solution. The status quo can simply not be tolerated any longer. There is no valid reason why any unit owner would not be supportive of sector representation. Those who would object to such a democratic solution must of course be prepared to explain the reason for their position to residents. All unit owners in our building  are encouraged to give serious thought to this solution and express support for its implementation in 2014.

For more than a year now, unit owners have received only the income statement portion of the monthly financial statements. A balance sheet and statement of the common expense and reserve funds has not been provided. These are required in order for the reader to conduct a reasonable review of finances. These should be provided as soon as possible.

The month to month financial activity in our Corporation is relatively minimal and monthly financial statement preparation can easily be completed and a complete statement distributed by the 15^th of the following month. Unit owners are being provided with financial reports often months after the reporting month has ended. This is not acceptable.

The monthly reports in the past used to include a management report which provided some description of the nature of expenditures. This practise should be returned and included in all monthly reports going forward.

There continues to be not only reluctance but refusal on the part of the Board and management to respond to requests from residents for financial and other pertinent information. The Board is reminded that this is in contravention of the Condominium Property Act. The Board should therefore direct management to promptly respond to current and past requests for such information as per this requirement of the Act.

Over the last several years, Spadina Condominium Corporation, has experienced many problems and issues relating to the mechanical systems in the building. These have included the new hot water heating system, the cooling tower, humidification, the domestic hot water system, etc.

Many of these issues could have been addressed in a much more efficient and effective manner. The most recent issue was of course the fourth failure of the domestic hot water system. Even though the board has been advised on numerous occasions by residents and others, what appropriate action must be taken, the board has failed to act upon this advice and has resulted in a great cost to residents.

The Board as per the wishes of the commercial owner, has refused to replace the humdification system. Should the commercial owner not wish to have humidification in the commercial units, fine, but residents have experienced health related problems over the past few years due to the extremely dry atmosphere in their units. The commercial owner has claimed that the engineer advised the Board that we do not require humidification and that the previous humidifier “didn’t work anyway”. The engineer has in writing and stated at a general meeting just the opposite, that the reason the humidifier was removed and was not replaced was because the Board advised him that they wished to save money on the overall new heating system and therefore he was given instructions to not install the humidifier.  The unit owners had approved albeit without a required special resolution, a heating system which included humidification. The engineer further advised, that at the time of his review, it was only the commercial humidifier that was not working. We have a number of former health care professionals residing in the building and you can be assured that they will acknowledge the health risk factors that exist without sufficient humidification. The residential humidifier must be installed immediately.

It has been suggested that a much different and more responsible approach be taken by the Board in addressing these mechanical issues. Considering the required level of knowledge and experience with mechanical systems, it has been suggested that because our most recently appointed Board member is in fact qualified and experienced in this area, that he be appointed to act as the building operations committee chairman. Questions and concerns of residents may very well then be be addressed with a qualified response.

The Board of Directors is apparently having a very difficult time understanding provisions within the Condominium Act relating to replacement of the front windows in our building. This matter has been addressed in a previous post which clearly states that the building is responsible for front window replacement as a common area expense. Common area is specifically and clearly defined  in the Registered Plan of the building. It raises serious questions as to why the Board of Directors finds such a clearly defined provision to be so difficult to understand. I would suggest that the Board simply finds the the facts of the matter much more difficult to accept as opposed to finding it difficult to understand.

The front windows have always been and continue to be part of the common area of the building and therefore any replacement is therefore a common area expense to be paid by the Corporation, not the unit owner. All front windows in the past have been, following a report by the owner of the damage, inspected and approval given to replace the window at the building’s expense. The building then seeks the best price (approximately $1000 per window) and arranges installation at the convenience of the unit owner.  Where an owner has chosen to replace a window without reporting damage and requesting replacement, they are of course responsible for the cost.

There has apparently been one window replaced in the past year, and approximately six or seven replaced over the past twenty years. These have all been damaged windows where the owner has reported the damage, an inspection conducted, and the window replaced at the building’s expense. There have been NO costs incurred by unit owners where they have reported a damaged window and requested replacement. Therefore, there are no refunds to consider.

It is important to note, that several of our residents attended and participated in a disussion of window replacement at a recent CCI meeting. The meeting confirmed that where the Condominium Act defines the front windows as common area, as is clearly the case in our building, the cost of replacement is the responsibility of the building. The CCI is certainly qualified with its legal resources in making this determination.

At the 2013 Annual General Meeting, a resolution was approved to have the  Spadina  Condominium Corporation purchase a membership in the local chapter of the Canadian Condominium Institute (CCI). The board was rather reluctant to support the purchase of this membership, however residents were overwhelmingly supportive of this membership which had been rejected by the board for a number of years. Contrary to the position of the board, the CCI is a very strong and well respected organization, representing the many interests of condominium owners across Canada. The benefits of membership are many.

Since obtaining this membership last fall, there have been a number of written communications issued by the local chapter to its members, some of them being of an urgent nature and requesting the input of condominium owners. Unfortunately, our residents received none of those communications that would have been received by our Board of Directors.

Fortunately, we have several residents in our building who contacted the CCI on their own and were able to obtain a copy of these communications and provide a response to the CCI’s request for input from residents. These residents met personally with CCI board members and voiced their opinion on a number of matters of interest and concern to our building’s residents.

These residents, having discovered on their own what the southern Saskatchewan  chapter of the CCI had accomplished for its members, voiced their support to our Chapter to obtain the same benefits for residents in our northern chapter. This includes:

Obtaining a refund for garbage removal services for which unit owners pay for in our taxes but do not receive because  we contract and pay for this service ourselves.  This refund is estimated to be $25 to $50 per unit per month, which would result in a substantial cost saving to our building.

The CCI has agreed to pursue this cost saving measure.

The local chapter of the CCI, has also been an active participant in the preparation of new and amended Regulations to the Condominium Property Act.  Unfortunately, our residents did not receive any CCI materials from our board which included an invitation to residents for their participation in the review process. However, several of our residents were able to find this information through their own efforts and did in fact participate directly in the review of these Regulations. Through both meetings with and written submissions to the Justice Ministry, our residents had an opportunity to provide their input.

The efforts of our residents who have participated in these matters on their own initiative, have ensured that their voice has been heard and will continue to be heard in the future. It is through such efforts, that benefits such as those previously mentioned can be realized for the benefit of all unit owners.

It has been approximately two weeks since domestic hot water service abruptly failed in an ongoing series of failures.

The board was shortly after and in the interim, reminded and questioned by numerous residents regarding their grave concerns as they relate to the boards demonstration of a very irresponsible lack of response and conduct in addressing this ongoing failure of hot water service to our residents.

Numerous residents have also expressed concerns over insufficient heating in their units without the requirement and extensive use of their Enercon (heat pump) units. The board  continues with their failure to understand that the design of the building requires the use of the Enercons only as a supplemental source of heat when temperatures and particularly effects of wind chill are extremely cold. This has been the case since the construction of the building in 1977 and the requirement of Enercon use on a regular basis in the winter months only began upon the recent installation of the new heating system. Net energy costs have increased dramatically as a result.

Further, management and the board have recently informed residents that they are afraid to increase boiler temperatures to “normal and acceptable temperature output settings” because our baseboard (perimeter) heating lines will start to leak! This clearly demonstrates a sad state and lack of understanding of the appropriate operation of the heating system. As many residents will attest to, there has been minimal inspection and maintenance to perimeter lines and associated valves and fittings over the past several years. Attention has primarily been limited to events of failure on these perimeter heating lines and the resulting damage. To  intentionally limit operating temperatures to well below what is required simply because of deferred maintenance is not at all acceptable.

It is not fair to residents in this building where they are required to live with unnecessary restrictions which prevent a comfortable level of heat supply to their units. Nor is it fair or reasonable to neglect the concerns and respect of residents upon their many requests for a responsible address to the ongoing failure of the domestic hot water service to the building. There is obviously a very serious operational or mechanical capacity issue with the current hot water service, and residents are entitled to a prompt response and explanation. The many requests of residents for the response of the board to advise as to the details of what plan is in place to address the yet next failure which could happen again at any time have yet to receive a response.

Residents require meaningful response and address to these few of many outstanding issues. We continue to await this response.