It is most unfortunate, that the Board has chosen yet again, to place blame upon a resident for an incident, which recently occurred and caused serious disruption to the unit owner and her family. A report from those attending, assisting and witnessing attention to this matter though out its entirety, clearly demonstrates, that the unit owner was IN FACT, NOT RESPONSIBLE IN ANY WAY FOR THIS INCIDENT AND ANY RELATED DAMAGE.

First of all, it appears that our Board members and certainly management, have not informed themselves of our Bylaws, the Condominium Property Act and as well, the Registered Plan of the building. Given this neglect, It is apparent, that Board members are in fact, not aware of their fiduciary duties and governance responsibilities.

The Registered Plan of the building, clearly outlines the boundaries of condominium units and as well, the common areas which contain infrastructure that service the units. This includes all HVAC and plumbing components. The Registered Plan, clearly states, that the legal VERTICAL boundary of a condominium unit, ends at the concrete surface of the floor within the unit. In this instance, NO EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED THAT DEMONSTRATED ANY BLOCKAGE CAUSED FROM WITHIN THE UNIT. IN FACT THE BLOCKAGE WAS DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO BE BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE THIS RESIDENTIAL UNIT, AND IN FACT EXISTED IN THE VERTICAL COMMON AREA DRAINAGE LINE.

ALL drainage lines from toilets within the units, are situated below this legal boundary and are therefore within COMMON AREA. All repair and maintenance to the HVAC and plumbing components within these COMMON AREAS, are the responsibility of the Corporation.

The plumbing contractor who recently acted upon the emergency call to address flooding within both bathrooms of an individual unit, used a camera which upon observation, revealed no blockage in lateral drain lines. In fact, the problem proved to be a considerable blockage beyond the lateral lines below the unit. A very strong acid was required to finally remove this blockage. As such, it was clearly evident, that there was no “MISUSE OF THE SYSTEM” on the part of the owner, and in fact demonstrated that there was rather, an obvious lack of responsible maintenance, which includes regular flushing of the vertical drainage mains.

THIS REGULAR FLUSHING, HAS NOT BEEN CONDUCTED SINCE THE LAST CARETAKER CONDUCTED THIS FLUSHING A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO. This procedure involves substantial water pressure, and when conducted, is very UNMISTAKENLY LOUD within residential units. No such procedure, has been witnessed by residents, for many years.  With conduct of such preventive maintenance, and responsible address to maintained clearance of lateral drainage lines, (ALL WITHIN COMMON AREAS), such travesties can easily be prevented.

A most sincere apology is obviously warranted to the owner of unit #1002, who experienced a most traumatic experience that no owner should experience. Further, immediate and remedial action,  must be taken by the Board to ensure that all damages incurred by this owner, are appropriately addressed in an expedient fashion.

Finally, it must be noted, that there is not only one unhappy owner over THIS AND MANY OTHER ISSUES WITHIN THE BUILDING, but in fact, MANY, who find the Board’s failed response to in fact be, appalling, and most obviously,  irresponsible.

BOARD REFUSES SERVICE TO OUR MOST ELDERLY RESIDENT

On Friday morning, April 29^th, one week prior to her 100^th birthday, our most senior resident having returned home the previous evening after a stay in hospital, found her two bathrooms flooded as a result of a plugged drain below her unit. She immediately called neighbors who immediately assisted with the cleanup and arranged for a plumber to attend the unit.

The plumber arrived about noon, but the caretaker or property manager made no attempt to attend the unit, even though they were informed of the problem immediately. Finally, the caretaker stopped by for a few minutes later in the afternoon, but when the contractor attempted to seek his assistance, he was reached by phone at about 4 PM and advised that he had left the building and would be gone for the weekend.

With the contractor unable to obtain authorization from either the caretaker or management to access the problem through an adjacent wall in another unit, the contractor who was prepared to stay until the problem was resolved, was prevented from proceeding and was advised that as a result, he would have to come back on Monday. Immediate emergency access is by law to be provided for such access in condominiums. Our caretaker, management and the Board, all refused to permit such access.

So for four days, our friend was left without use of both her bathrooms. She found it necessary to spend three nights with a friend in the building. With all of her family arriving over the next few days for her birthday celebrations, she found the experience to be very disrupting and frustrating, to say the very least.

The caretaker stopped by briefly on Monday, the contractor returned and was finally able to resolve the problem. The property manager did not attend the unit until the days following, nor did a single Board member stop by to review this serious emergency situation.

The Board has since refused to respond to ongoing requests of them to cleanup and repair the damage that occurred during the contractors work. This includes the obvious need for cleaning and shampooing the carpets where foot traffic during the work period, had been tracked through the residence. This contamination is a very serious health hazard.

Such incidents have continued to happen in the building over the past several years, yet nothing has been done about it. The Board has been advised for many years now, that preventive maintenance measures must be taken immediately to prevent such issues which continue to be deferred. Until such measures are taken, the unit owners will continue to face unnecessary disruption and the Corporation will continue to incur the substantial costs of such unnecessary incidents.

As for this current issue, the Board has simply refused to respond to requests made of them over the past week, let alone act upon them in any way. Such neglect is most appalling and certainly most disrespectful to of all people, our most elderly and dear resident! Once again, it is time for residents to speak up and remind their Board of what common courtesy and respect for their neighbors is all about!

Spadina News Center 2016-05-17

PARKADE REPAIRS

The $950,000 cost was certainly NOT, as reported, within budgeted estimates which were previously reported by the Board, to be approximately $650,000. As with the heating system, this project will come in well over budget by 50% plus. Residents have been advised that the reason for the total replacement of the parkade topping was because there was structural damage. Unfortunately, the Board has refused to provide upon many requests of residents, a structural engineering report revealing evidence of any such structural damage. Residents have been clearly misinformed.

It has been suggested for quite some time, that the wish of the commercial owner, is to promote any RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURE that is specifically of benefit to them, and particularly, when the residents will be paying 55.69% of the total bill. Residents must enlighten themselves as to the nature of the MILLIONS of dollars spent by the Corporation over the past few years, and just what SECTOR of unit owners has benefited.

Unfortunately, our residential Board members, have as again suggested by numerous others, easily succumbed to the demand from the commercial sector interests.

Such projects are normally negotiated with payment provisions following completion of the project, usually within 30 to 90 days of the completion date, with a holdback provision as well. Assuming the advised 6 month construction period from May 11th,  that would imply a completion date of mid November. A reasonable provision for payment within even 30 days of completion would require payment no earlier than mid December.

Why are residents being required to PREPAY and give their cash to the Corporation early in the estimated six month construction period, far in advance of a reasonable due date of payment to the contractor, which would not be until December? Why have financing options not been made available to unit owners, which could have easily been arranged by the Corporation, whereby monthly contributions could easily be made to the Reserve Fund, taking advantage of the lowest interest rates in history? Many of our senior residents, should not be unnecessarily impacted with penalties when forced to cash in their investments, simply to accommodate the unnecessary demands made of them by the Board.

Unfortunately, it may be too late to reverse this most irresponsible decision to proceed with this project, but there is still opportunity for the Board, and particularly resident Board members, to act responsibly and respectfully, in the interest of residents, and simply arrange a financing option where contributions are made through monthly contributions to their condo fees.

Why was the newsletter distributed on May 3rd, some 6 days following the issuance date of April 27, 2016 and one day AFTER distribution of the assessment notice? This of course prevented an opportunity for residents to ask questions in response to the April 27th newsletter which should have been distributed on the same day. Unfortunately, as a result, residents were SIMPLY BILLED, and not provided with any opportunity to review the details of the project (even the limited details provided in the newsletter) prior to any decision being made. Continue reading →