Spadina Towers has not had a MANDATORY Reserve Fund Budget presented to owners FOR THEIR MANDATORY APPROVAL, in several years.

At the 2014 Annual General Meeting of the Spadina Condominium Corporation, the Board advised attendees that the Reserve Fund Study, although now mandatory by law, was “not necessary” and was just “a waste of money”. The Board need be reminded, that a responsible Board will respect the professional guidance of an independent Reserve Fund Study, not demean and disrespect it.

A most troubling example of this disrespect, is the past Reserve Fund Study clearly recommending annual maintenance to the topping of the surface area of the parkade. The Board totally rejected this recommendation and has UNLAWFULLY, without a vote of unit owners, approved this CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, with a total replacement  of the topping, to be completed rather than respecting the professional guidance provided in the Reserve Fund study which recommends, ongoing annual maintenance. Any such maintenance, net of cosmetic only efforts, has not been performed in years. In other words, the recommendations of the Reserve Fund Study, have been totally rejected.

Responsible governance, of course requires the Board’s adherence to both the Bylaws, and the Condominium Property Act, whereby, address to CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, requires responsible financial budgeting and planning, reflected in a responsible Reserve Fund Budget. This Budget, of course, is subject to approval by unit owners. NO SUCH BUDGET HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO UNIT OWNERS IN A NUMBER OF YEARS, yet well over a million dollars has been spent, with no such approval.

It is clear that the Board has chosen to SIMPLY DECLARE ON THEIR OWN, to declare all RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES to be simply maintenance (or operating expenses), and have illicitly included, numerous, CAPITAL EXPENDITURES in this category as well.

This decision was made under the falsely declared premise, that evidence of structural damage has been demonstrated. This is of course a false and misleading misrepresentation of the facts. Any claim of “structural” damage, must be supported with a formal report based upon “destructive testing and analysis” on the part of a structural engineer. To date, the Board has refused to make any such report available to residents upon their request. Unilateral approval by the Board of such major CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, is unlawful and in direct contravention of both SCC Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act.