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.