In the January 2014 report of the Board of Directors, it was stated, “Mr. Justice Benjamin Goldstein has kindly offered his assistance to fully reviewing the 1993 Condo Act to attempt to help us clarify“. “We are grateful for his experience and time.” This issue of course, related to legal responsibility for the cost of replacing damaged front wall windows in our building.

Mr. Goldstein has failed to provide any such review and has simply left the matter in limbo. He and his fellow Board members, have not only rejected compliance wtih the laws governing this issue, but more importantly, have clearly demonstrated  a most troubling lack of respect for their fellow residents.

Should our Corporation require a legal opinion on any matter with relevance to the interest of any or all unit owners of our Corporation, only QUALIFIED AND INDEPENDENT legal resources should be used. In this matter, one needs only to read Section 8 (2) of the Condominium Property Act. No legal opinion is required.

It is clear that our Corporation is in fact responsible for the replacement of any wall window, where damage has been reported by the unit owner, an inspection conducted, and where it has been determined that the owner is not responsible for the cause of the damage through their own negligence.

This responsibility is clearly defined in the Condominium Property Act.

In September of 2006, Tom McClocklin Jr. and Tom McClocklin Sr. through their respective holding companies, became the new owners of the commercial units of the Spadina Condominium Corporation. Tom McClocklin Jr. became a Board member shortly thereafter.

Subsequent to this change in ownership, the Board of Spadina Condominium Corporation, felt that there was good reason to believe that the new commercial owners were seeking a controlling influence upon the Corporation. This serious concern has been well documented in the records of the Corporation. The new owners were not only suggesting, but were DEMANDING that their affiliated property management company, COLLIERS McCLOCKLIN REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, be simply APPOINTED as property manager of the Spadina Condominium Corporation.

A committee was established by the board, to review the matter, with responsibilities  including the request for submissions from other management companies to manage the building. Several well respected property management companies, presented their proposals to manage our property.

The proposals were received by committee members and the Board found them all to be very qualified. It was obvioulsy the requirement of a responsible Board of Directors, to ensure no conflict of interest, a legal reqrirement of the Corporation. Following a review of the proposals, the Board was prepared to make a recommendation at the next Board meeting to be held early in the New Year.

Almost immediately, and following his again absence at the Board meeting, a generally absentee Board member, demanded a meeting next morning on a Sunday, to hear his message.

This Board member, immediately advised the meeting with a STATED DECLARATON, THAT THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH CONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD TO APPOINT A DIFFERENT PROPERTY MANAGER! This pompous declaration, was of course, very disrespectful of his fellow Board members and fellow residents. The reasons for considering a change in management were explained to this Board member, who simply refused to acknowledge the reasons. This  Board member, then insisted,  that he and the chairman, would meet with the commercial owners and their property management company, and RESOLVE the matter! This was certainly not a matter for someone with such disrespectful conduct, to make any such demand.

This meeting did take place, and it was again, pompously declared,  that Colliers McClocklin Real Estate Corporation would in fact, continue to be the property manager of the property. This of course, without approval of the Board or the input of residents!  It was obvious that, this Board member’s opinion and extra special interest in this matter, would become subject to very serious concerns by both Board members and residents.

Most unfortunately, our chairman, succumbed to the demands of this unruly Board member and his unconditional support of the commercial owners. Both Board members and fellow residents found this to be very disturbing where now, serious concerns of conflict of interest issues existed. After many years of absenteeism from Board meetings, this Board member, suddenly expressed and undertook, a most sudden and unusual interest in attendance of Board meetings. Clear support for any and all interests of the commercial owners, became very apparent.

What residents should find to very disturbing, is the fact that just this one resident board member along with the commercial owner, effectively control both the Board and representation of all unit owners! This is why when approximately 80% of all residents voted against the new hot water heating system, it did not matter. The legal requirement of a special resolution was simply rejected, and this one resident Board member along with the commercial owner, determined the outcome!

This control by just one resident and the commercial owner prevented a democratic vote. As has been stated on many occasions by astute residents, OUR BOARD IS NOT ELECTED, IT IS APPOINTED! WITH THIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST, ALL RESIDENTS COULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF A RESOLUTION, ONLY TO BE DEFEATED BY ONE RESIDENT AND ONE COMMERCIAL OWNER! There is of course no valid reason, for any resident to NOT OBJECT to this absence of democracy!

The adoption of sector representation and contracting independent property management,  would correct this serious situation by ensuring democratic representation of our residents. It is important to note that the one resident Board member referenced above along with the commercial owner, have voiced strong objection to sector representation. There is of course no valid argument, other than special interest, that would support such objection.

Given the damaging outcome of what has been allowed to happen here, there is certainly good reason for adoption of meaningful measures to address these issues, and ensure democratic governance of the Corporation. Numerous requests for provision by each Board member of an appropriate CODE OF ETHICS DISCLOSURE, continue to be rejected, and in particular by one particular residential Board member, and the commercial owners.

Therefore, it is requested that all Board members, sign and submit to the board at their next meeting, a CODE OF ETHICS DISCLOSURE. Receipt of these written disclosures should be acknowledged in the minutes of that meeting.  It is requested that the DISCLOSURE STATEMENT available from the CCI (Canadian Condominium Institute), a respected legal document, be used for this purpose. It is a commonly used form of disclosure used by many condominium associations across Canada.  Any further rejection of this request, will of course raise some very serious questions. 

The Board should also advise residents that they do in fact have the option to achieve democratic representation BY ESTABLISHING SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SECTORS FOR THIS PURPOSE. The Board should respect the interests of residents and ensure that they are permitted to determine on their own if they wish to adopt sector representation. It is requested that this option be placed on the agenda of the next general meeting where residents will be given the opportunity to express their support for its adoption. 

Finally, without responsible address to these issues, all unit owners can continue to realize a most negative impact upon the value of their property. There is no need  for this serious situation to continue. Corrective measures have been suggested above, and the sooner they are implemented, the sooner residents will realize an increased interest, respect and value in their property!

At the 2013 Annual General Meeting, the board did not prepare and present a budget for the Reserve Fund account. When questioned at the meeting as to why not, the response was simply that there would be no reserve fund expenditures in the coming year. As the building throughout its entire history, has always had Reserve Fund expenditures and certainly a budget for them, this response from the treasurer was found to be very questionable.

Recently, residents were informed that someone on the board would like to spend resident funds on the exercise room. This would require funding from the Reserve Fund. Apparently, this Board member convinced the Board to proceed with this expenditure.We once again see the Board proceeding with absolutely no consultation or participation of residents.

A far more necessary and responsible use of residential funds would of course be to install a humidification unit which was removed and not replaced during installation of the new heating system. Again, members of the Board  made this decision with no consultation or participation of residents. Residents have been severely impacted by the extreme dry conditions in the building during the winter months.

This has been yet again another winter where our residents have experienced extremely low humidity levels, often following below 10% which becomes an extreme health hazard. There is no question that this problem must be addressed before any other Reserve Fund expenditure is considered.

The Board has attempted to provide excuses for not replacing the former humidifier unit, including that the engineer advised the building it didn’t need one. This was found not to be true.  When the engineer was questioned about this at a general meeting held subsequent to the installation of the new heating system, his response was that he was directed NOT TO INCLUDE THE HUMIDIFIER IN ORDER IN ORDER TO REDUCE COSTS OF THE PROJECT!  It is important to note, that humidification was an original and intregal component of  the building’s HVAC system and served the building well for more than 30 years. Residents purchased their units with the understanding and comfort knowing this was a beneficial feature of their unit.

Any such alteration or removal of such a major component of the building’s mechanical system which in turn seriously impacts the the use and enjoyment of a residents property, is very disrespectful of our residents and certainly raises questions about such decisions being made without appropriate consultation with them.

The Board must not be allowed to continue spending other people’s money simply to satisfy their own personal agenda. It is requested that immediate arrangements be made to reinstall the humidifier to serve the residential units. Further, it is requested that no expenditure be made regarding the exercise room until residents have in fact been consulted on the matter and an opportunity provided for their input. This matter should therefore be left for further review at the next general meeting.

There have been many suggestions on the part of residents that the “BUILDING OPERATIONS COMMITTEE“ is subject to serious questions and concern. There are obviously concerns relating to not only qualifications and experience, but in addition, CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUES. The property management company is paid to oversee and manage building operations. Thus, committee members must be totally independent of the property management company. This has resulted in the existance of an obvious conflict of interest issue for some time.  Unit owners are entitled to receiving disclosure of any commercial relationship between board members and/or their related entities, both currently and in the past.

It  has been repeatedly requested in the past, that ALL BOARD MEMBERS, provide signed disclosure statements. These requests have always been rejected, even though residents have and continue to question this rejection of our residential board members in particular. It is suggested that each board member provide to the Board, a signed disclosure statement (using the prescribed form provided by the CCI). This is a very common requirement of condominium board members across Canada. This would certainly help provide at least some measure of respectful address to the many questions and concerns of residents.

Residents believe that the most recent appointment to the Board of Directors, Mr. Kowalyshin, is far more qualified and experienced to represent their interests as they relate to building operations. It is suggested that Mr. Kowalyshin, be immediately appointed, as the sole chair and committee member of the building operations committee.

Residents apparently don’t seem to notice or care about the waste of THEIR MONEY on expenditures in this building from which they receive no benefit.

A couple of years ago, the commercial owner advised the board that “Smart Plugs” should be installed for outdoor commercial parking stalls. Yes, there certainly were residents who did question and object to this expenditure of “their money” but were simply advised that it was for their benefit and would result in a major reduction in residential electrical costs.

Residential board members simply rejected these concerns of their fellow residents, and yet once again, provided unanimous support to the wishes of the commercial owner for yet another expenditure for their exclusive benefit. This may be an added value to the commercial units, but to those who know better, residents have paid the majority cost of this unneccessary expenditure, when there is absolutely no benefit to them!

Well, several years later, electrical costs continue to increase substantially, with no reason to believe that this expenditure has resulted in any such savings.  If residents have not noticed, with ongoing below normal cold mid winter temperatures, their fellow residents have observed that commercial tenants or employees of Colliers DO NOT plug in their vehicles! If any do, they certainly have not done so during this record cold season! Obviously, there has been no promised electrical saving realized with this installation of smart plugs, but simply a waste and loss of residents money. The Board should demonstrate some responsible address to this matter, and require that the commercial owner use their own funds for this yet another expenditure that provides zero benefit to residents.

Again, residents must become much more attentive to such expenditures which continue without their objection. Residential board members simply agree to the commercial owners demands for such expenditures with little if any responsible representation of their fellow residents and their money.

It is therefore suggested that the board indeed take responsibility for such illegitimate use of resident funds, and require this wasted cost to be born fully by the commercial sector.

We have now completed three years of operation with the new hot water heating system. Sadly to say, not only did the total capital cost of the system far exceed the number provided to residents, but energy costs have increased dramatically and continue to escalate.

THE TOTAL ACCUMULATED INCREASE IN ENERGY COSTS FOR 2011-2013  versus the year of completion of installation, 2010, ARE $82,317.00 OVER 2010 when installation of the new system was completed. 

This includes reflection of the adjustments required for reduction in natural gas rates and increases in electrical rates (approximately $31,702.10 net savings due to rate reductions). In other words, $82,317.00 is the total additional and accumulated cost of energy (2011-2013) had rates not changed and therefore provides a direct and more accurate comparison to 2010.  The only reason actual NET CASH COSTS during this period have only increased $50,614.90 is because natural gas rates dropped substantially in 2011, 2012 and 2013. Again, had it not been for a reduction in ENERGY RATES, the amount of the accumulated increase in net energy costs would be $82,317.00.

Residents were informed by our Board of Directors, prior to the purchase of the new system, that energy costs would DECREASE substantially, and that there would be more than a $10,000 annual saving in chemical costs as NO water treatment would be required. Well, the fact is, water treatment IS required and there is no such saving. It was further stated that this system would last 40 to 50 years and that the dramatic reduction in energy costs would result in a payback period of approximately 7 years!.

These of course, are very irresponsible and misleading statements made to residents who are expected to have trust in their Board members. Residents were advised that those considering the sale of their unit would find that this system would be a “very strong selling point, as fees should continue to go down”. This is of course seriously challenged by residents who have, most unfortunately realized the negative impact of the new heating system project, upon the market value of their unit. Approximately 80% of residents voted AGAINST approval of this system and expressed their strong preference for simply a direct steam for steam replacement of the two steam boilers that have performed extremely well for over 30 years. Their preferred option would have SAVED MORE THAN HALF A MILLION DOLLARS in capital costs, and more importantly, would have resulted in a substantial DECREASE in energy costs and a reduction in monthly fees. A responsible review of comparative technical data, clearly supports the benefits of this preferred option. 

Yet the board proceeded without the required special resolution of our unit owners as is required in our bylaws. The commercial owners were strong advocates of this new hot water system and along with the support of only a few residents, declared approval of this system and proceeded with its decision to install the new system.

Unfortanately, residents have been forced to pay the majority of not only the unnecessary capital cost of approximately ONE MILLION DOLLARS,  but also, the dramatic increase in energy costs since the installation, and of course the ongoing increasing energy costs going forward.

NONE of the above promises have been realized. At the current rate of energy consumption, within seven years, these accumulated cost INCREASES will be approximately $200,000 versus the promised savings or DECREASES of a similar amount! Residents must reaIize that the promised energy cost savings did not happen and never will. Residents will never get their money back over 7 years through energy cost savings as promised. Further, they will be subject to much higher monthly fees required to pay for this most unneccessary and irresponsible adventure on the part of the Board.  

A contingent liability now exists where the thousands of dollars received in grants based upon the inaccurate submission of the Corporation projecting substantial energy SAVINGS may very well be subject to a return of these funds to the government. Residents would then of course be asked for additional fees in the form of a special assessment to fund this.

In terms of property values, the lack of transparency to this entire project has had a very negative impact upon property values in this building and has certainly proven NOT TO BE THE BIG “selling point” as was repeatedly touted by board members.

These dramatic cost increases to residents are obviously of great concern. This has of course contributed to the tremendous increase in electrical consumption and in turn costs, since installation of the new heating system.

Clearly, an opportunity has been lost where we could have had a much more reliable heating system with a substantially lower capital cost, along with improved efficiency and in turn, substantially lower energy costs. From this point on, residents must be prepared to challenge these poor decisions made on their behalf by the Board, and ensure that any and all major projects are reviewed with the participation of residents and approved only following approval by a special resolution.

A detailed report and analysis supporting the energy cost analysis noted above, is available to any unit owner, subject to prior receipt of a formal analysis presented by the Board of Directors for the same period.

***When this issue was heard in Provincial Court in April of 2012, the court was advised that the Spadina Condominium Corporation SAVED $44,329 in total energy costs including rate adjustments for the first year of operation of the new heating system. The court was further advised that the Corporation stated on the grant application that there would be an estimated annual saving of $46,000 per year in energy costs with the new hot water heating system! What will the auditor of this grant program have to say about this submission today?

The facts clearly demonstrate, that these amounts submitted with the support of our own President, were very simply, UNTRUE! Our Corporation was represented during the trial by Board President Ben Goldstein and a team of lawyers from the McPherson, Leslie & Tyerman law firm. A fellow provincial court judge of Mr. Goldstein accepted his submission that there were SAVINGS of $44,329 in energy costs in the first year! The judge, surprisingly, refused to even look at the prepared report of a factual and accurate energy cost analysis which was fully supported by actual invoices and other documentation! Lawyers who have reviewed this matter since, find this behavior of both the judge and those representing the Spadina Condominium Corporation, to be very disturbing.

It is clear that the court was deceived by those representing the Spadina Condominium Corporation. Mr. Goldstein, who yet remains a board member, is requested to respond to this issue by providing that analysis of energy costs of 2011, 2012 and 2013 relative to 2010 that he acknowledged and in turn presented as evidence to the court.

Upon receipt of Mr. Goldstein’s report, the details of the energy analysis report referenced above along with comparatives to years prior to this report, will be disclosed to all unit owners.

From unhealthy and even dangerous humidity levels in residential units to a fog of dust in the parkade, residents, yet once again, have very good reason to complain to their Board of Directors. (Not to mention continuing repeated failure of domestic hot water supply, insufficient perimeter heating, etc.)

Humidity levels during the winter over the last few years, often fall to 10% or less since the removal of the residential humidification system. As for dust levels in the parkade, these have also become extreme, unhealthy, and totally unacceptable. The resulting health hazard is equally harmful to the low humidification levels within condominium units. You can wash your car one day, only to find it covered with a layer of dust the following day. As residents use the parkade 24 hours per day, lack of address to this very serious condition is certainly most disrespectful of our residents on the part of both management and more importantly, the Board of Directors.

The continuing reduction and neglect of residential services in our building requires  meaningful action. The lack of responsible attention of residential Board members to these ongoing issues has serious negative impact on their fellow residents.  These issues have now reached a most troubling level. It is preferable that the Board act promptly as opposed to residents having to act on their own initiative to seek address of these issues.

The Corporation and board members are clearly exposing themselves to liability for the neglect of these serious conditions. While the board may simply provide their usual response that residents are always complaining about something, they should be showing respect for their fellow residents and their concerns. Duty of care is fundamental responsibility of Board members along with many other legal obligations to our residents.

For many years, the parkade floor was washed twice a month during the winter months to remove the great amount of sand being tracked in by vehicles and the resulting dust in the air. Now, we are lucky to have the floor washed even once during the entire winter. Given this neglect of what should be normal and regular maintenance, a much more extensive effort is required in order to remove the accumulated build up of dirt and debris which has now been allowed to cake to much of the parkade surface area. This further neglect of required maintenance will of course result in a totally unncessary cost to residents. This is of course not acceptable.

We have a similar problem with our residential hallways. The current caretaker has been here nearing five years and the hallway carpets have never been shampooed! Again, these carpets were previously shampooed every year in both the spring and in the fall. The recently installed carpets have become stained on a number of floors and there has been no effort to remove them. They are showing wear already after only one year. Unfortunately, the carpet selection has failed to be compatible with multi unit traffic.

 Further, for many years, we have had weekend janitorial service, but have not for the past several years. Residents are often embarrassed as a result of this lack of service service which is of course assumed to be provided in a luxury condominium property.  It appears that those who voice or support concerns of such matters, appreciate a higher level of standards than others.

It is obvious that the caretaker is no longer being directed or adequately supervised to ensure this work is done on a regular basis. For whatever reason, the board nor management say nothing.  Even snow removal on the sidewalk is now being done by others. Just what is our caretaker responsible for? The cost of this caretaker is well beyond reason and yet his services to the building continue to diminish.

Once again, a copy of the caretaker contract should be provided to those who have made the request. The subject of caretaker contracts came up at a recent CCI meeting and fortunately we had residents there participating in the meeting. It was made clear that condominium corporations must provide a copy of the caretaker contract for review upon the request of a resident.

The legal resources available to and from the CCI, are obviously far more qualified than those available from SCC board members. Therefore, their qualified position on the requirement of a Condominium Board to provide its residents with access to the caretaker contract must be respected, NOT REJECTED. It is suggested that the board respect their legal obligations and provide residents upon their request, an opportunity to review this contract in its entirety.