Given the most premature declaration of victory by the Board of Directors, regarding the Statement of Claim filed against the Corporation, it is essential, that unit owners be advised, that the matter remains unresolved and that the matter has been appealed and therefore remains before the Courts for a final decision. The following comments have been provided by Mr. Tofin in response to misleading allegations which have been and continue to be made by the Board.

On March 31^st, 2016, the Court of Queen’s Bench heard an application by the Spadina Condominium Corporation and summarily (without hearing evidence on the claim of Dennis Tofin), dismissed his Statement of Claim. Mr. Tofin sought damages and instruction of the Court, to correct the Board’s failure to address the deferred (neglected) maintenance of certain issues to common area property of the Corporation. This neglect of duty by the Board and management, has had a detrimental impact upon his right to the use and enjoyment of his personal property and by other unit owners to theirs.

Mr. Tofin sought address to the following issues:

1. Reimbursement for $1380 assessed to the owner of #402 for new carpeting (which has never been installed on the 4th floor hallway).
2. Repair or replacement of his security monitor which is part of the buildings security system.
3. Balcony repair. Replacement of the perimeter flashing on the deck of #402 which was removed by the Corporation (in error), but never replaced. Mr. Tofin requested address to the repair of the rough surface of the deck, again as a result of the Corporation removing the concrete surface, in error, and simply replacing the concrete surface with uneven paving blocks. Mr. Tofin also sought reimbursement for his costs incurred ($200) to correct the unattended and refused maintenance and repair to the deteriorating facing above the front windows and the rust stained walls of the balcony.
4. Several parking stalls have experienced leakage of drippings from the ceiling above them.  Mr. Tofin’s parking stall for his unit #402 (Stall P5), has effectively been unusable for a long period of time, due to the leakage of the said drippings from the ceiling above, which results in permanent stain damage to any vehicle parking there. He has therefore, been unable to rent this parking stall for much of the past several years. He sought recovery of lost rental income.
5. Mr. Tofin was successful in recovering $239.66 for damages he incurred to plumbing as a result of damage caused by the Corporation’s plumbing contractor when replacing a water shut off valve.
6. Finally, Mr. Tofin included in his claim (not for damages), but a request of the Court to direct the Corporation to replace residential humidification which was in service from 1977 through to the time of the installation of the new heating system. Residents approved as a package at the same General meeting, both replacement of the humidification system and the heating system.

On April 4, 2016, the Court, on very technical grounds, decided that Mr. Tofin had no basis for his claim. The Court advised that Mr. Tofin was simply repeating the same claims he had previously submitted or had the opportunity to submit in the prior court proceedings. This is incorrect, as the issues of this claim have never been heard by a Court in the past. The Court advised that it is the unit owners who have decided what repair and maintenance is to take place, and not the Board. This is absolutely incorrect, and any responsible unit owner, knows that this is false.

The Court declared that no resident, other than Dennis Tofin, has raised any disagreement with the Board and management, regarding ANY deferred maintenance issues, and stated that this is evidenced by the fact that, there has been no inclusion of any such resident concerns in the minutes of General Meetings for the past 8 years as submitted to the Court by the Defendant.

Most residents will agree that, many requests to the Board seeking address to numerous issues, have been made over the past 8 years, but were never recorded in the minutes. There has been NO Reserve Fund Budget, outlining proposed expenditures of the Corporation, presented to unit owners for their required participation in discussion, and their LEGALLY REQUIRED APPROVAL BY FORMAL RESOLUTION. The Court went further, and declared that the unit owners of the Corporation, have in fact spoken and have agreed wholeheartedly by their silence, that THEY HAVE NO SUCH CONCERNS AS Dennis Tofin does with the failure of the Board to acknowledge and address such issues. Again, responsible unit owners will obviously find this to be a false and misleading statement.

The Court declared that unit owners have not only been provided with the opportunity to approve all expenditures of the Corporation, but have had available to them, every opportunity to even further their voice by running for election to the Board or initiating implementation of their wishes by simply and easily adopting resolutions to that effect at a General Meeting.

The vast majority of unit owners will acknowledge, that even with 95% resident support, it is impossible for ANY resident to be elected or even achieve the required support for seeking a resolution, without the support of the commercial owner. The Court has refused to recognize the true situation that exists at our condo, which is tantamount to oppression.

CONCLUSION: It was apparent, that the Board chose to accept, on behalf of the Corporation, the recommendation of the commercial owner to appoint the COMMERCIAL OWNER’S LONG TIME LEGAL COUNSEL, Naheed Bardai (MLT), to represent the Corporation in their defence of the statement of claim made by Dennis Tofin. It was clear, through the proceedings, that Mr. Bardai, primarily, represented the interests of the commercial owner versus that of the residential owners, this clearly to the detriment of residential interests.

As a result of Dennis Tofin’s claim against the Corporation, the Court has responded with a decision whereby, he is effectively being penalized by the Court as per the request of the Corporation, for making this claim, and has been ordered by the Court to pay costs of $10,000 for doing so, as opposed to reasonable compensation for damages that Mr. Tofin had sought. It should be noted, that the hearing lasted less than two hours. Given the blatent false and misleading information presented to the Court by the Spadina Board of Directors, the decision of the Court is obviously being appealed by Mr. Tofin.

Mr. Tofin has in fact attempted to speak on behalf of not only himself, but for many residents by raising these very issues of neglect by the Corporation, but was not given the opportunity to present his case. All residents are encouraged to review and think about the many specific issues that have in fact been raised on many occasions in the past, and ensure that their voices are heard very clearly by the Board. It is most unfortunate, that the Court has determined and declared, BASED UPON SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM OUR BOARD, THAT SPADINA RESIDENTS HAVE FOR SOME 8 YEARS, EXPRESSED NO SUCH CONCERNS OR ISSUES THAT REQUIRE THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD! This statement of the Board, is of course false and most misleading.

Some of the many current issues that remain unaddressed by the Board, include significant and inappropriate expenditures by the Corporation, including those for thousands of dollars of commercial owner expenses, revealed during a residents review of invoices. THE COURT HAS ACCEPTED A MOST MISLEADING SUBMISSION FROM OUR BOARD, THAT MR. TOFIN IS THE ONE AND ONLY RESIDENT WHO HAS OBJECTED TO ANY SUCH ISSUES FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS.  Obviously, most residents would disagree.

UPDATE! The Board has chosen to distribute the Court’s decision to a select number of residents, and has apparently lobbied these residents with outright slanderous allegations against Dennis Tofin for his Statement of Claim against the Corporation.

The matter is currently under appeal. As such, it is most inappropriate of a Board of Directors to make such allegations with a matter which remains outstanding before the Courts reaches a final decision. If only the Board had addressed the neglected issues, there would have been no need for such action.

Legal costs reported, are expensive, excessive, and have been left totally without scrutiny by the Board. The Board has chosen to engage the commercial owners lawyer and spend whatever it takes, to challenge anyone who objects to their negligence. Such costs, are totally unnecessary.

It is most interesting, that  in early 2015, a Board member asked Mr. Tofin if his proposed claim was open for discussion and negotiation. Mr. Tofin’s response, was yes, certainly! That was the last relative communication ever received from the Board.