Residents are asking why has there been a cash call demanded of them for legal fees, yet no response has been provided? The Board has recently announced a CASH CALL to residents for legal costs. Why has the Board refused to provide any background information at all to residents, including the fact that they are defending a claim of $12,100 at a cost of $17,300. With funds of approximately $500,000 on hand at June 30, 2016, why did the Board find a cash call necessary for these legal fees?

The matter relates to a claim by Dennis Tofin against the Corporation for the Board’s refusal to address deferred maintenance issues which have been outlined in a previous post on April 9th. The reasons for this action should be reviewed by all residents. To access this information, simply contact spadinanewscenter.com (user name and password are both the number 731). A memo including these reasons was previously distributed as well.

The Board president asked Mr. Tofin in January of 2015, if a claim he was considering, was open for negotiating settlement. Mr. Tofin responded that it was certainly open for negotiation, but the Board refused to discuss the matter any further. The matter could have been resolved very easily. Unfortunately, with this rejection by the Board, Mr. Tofin was forced to seek a last resort address to the issues by way of a legal action.

The claim against the Corporation was for $12,100 but was always open for negotiation. An award of these funds, would simply have been used by Mr. Tofin, to complete, at his own expense, address to the outstanding deferred maintenance issues, which should have been addressed by the Corporation. Why would the Board totally reject address to these outstanding deferred maintenance issues, knowing full well, that they are ultimately, fully responsible for completing and paying for this maintenance at some point? 

The Board, rather than pursuing discussion and negotiation, chose to refuse any further communication with Mr. Tofin, and accepted the risk of a court decision resulting in potential legal costs to the Corporation and in addition, an order of the Court requiring address of these issues at yet additional costs to the Corporation.

Why would a Board choose to spend $17,300 in defending a $12,100 claim? What Board discussion took place to approve this expenditure? Why did the Board not make any attempt to discuss the matter with Mr. Tofin prior to making any such decision?  Why is the Board demanding $17,300 from unit owners, when the cost to the Corporation currently totals $7300, as a result of an order of the Court for Mr. Tofin to pay $10,000?

Why has the Board made this cash call which is totally unnecessary. The Corporation has an estimated $150,000 cash on hand, and in each condo news report, the Board continues to advise residents of their being under budget and in a very financially sound position? Cash calls are only permitted for EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES WHERE FUNDS ON HAND ARE INSUFFICIENT! Residents of course have not been informed over the past year of funds on hand, but it is currently estimated to be some $150,000 plus. Such cash calls are unheard of in any responsibly managed condominium corporation. Why has the Board concealed this information from residents?

Most condominium corporations, including Spadina Towers, have liability insurance coverage to cover legal costs. Our Corporation has always had such coverage. Why was no insurance claim made by the Corporation? Residents are of course, entitled to an explanation, and as well, a copy of any relevant communications with the insurance company, and as well, those with the Corporation’s legal counsel(s).

Further, why are residents being assessed before a final decision of the Court has been made?  And most particularly, why is the Board simply not addressing these deferred maintenance issues presented by Mr. Tofin, which must be addressed at some point and at a cost of $12,100 anyway?

It is not Mr. Tofin who has neglected deferred maintenance issues, but was obviously a Board decision. If any other responsible resident was impacted in the same way Mr. Tofin has with this neglect and refusal of the Corporation to discuss and resolve these issues, they would also find that they too, would realize that their only option to seek address, is most unfortunately, through the courts. Why did the Board refuse to even discuss the matter with Mr. Tofin?

It is clearly apparent, and acknowledged by residents, that there appears to be an ulterior motive behind the Board refusing to address the deferred maintenance issues brought forth by Mr. Tofin. It appears, that the constant barrage of disparaging comments and insults upon Mr. Tofin, for his ongoing effort to seek address to these neglected issues, particularly in residential units and adjoined common areas, is a most strategic effort by the Board to silence Mr. Tofin.

 It is totally unnecessary and inappropriate for the Board, to demand cash from residents to pay for a matter yet to be decided by the Court. Residents contribute in their condo fees, to the substantial costs of insurance, which covers such costs. Why has no insurance claim be made by the Corporation? This entire matter, could have easily been resolved, within monthly condo fees, already provided BY RESIDENTS.

It appears that the Board has and will continue to attempt whatever measure it takes, and at whatever cost necessary, to silence Mr. Tofin in his seeking of responsible address, to serious and neglected deferred maintenance issues impacting his property and that of other residents as well.

Hopefully, residents will feel more informed with the above information, much of which has unfortunately been concealed from them by the Board. Had the Board pursued discussion as offered by Mr. Tofin, residents would not have had any need to be bothered with this entire matter.

RESOLUTION OPTIONS

To ensure that residents are provided with a source of authority on this issue, they should refer to the binding legal documents pertaining to governance of the Corporation. These include, the Corporate Bylaws, the Condominium Property Act/Regulations, and the Registered Condominium Plan for Spadia Towers. Residents are very much encouraged to review appropriate references within these documents, which clearly provide confirmation that the Corporation is in fact responsible for completion and payment for the neglected deferred maintenance, as sought by Mr. Tofin in his claim.

Finally, simple silence among residents to this issue, does nothing to assist in moving this and many other issues forward. It is strongly suggested, that residents, must seek restoration of democracy within the Corporation which has now been absent for some time.

An expedient resolution, continues to be sought by Dennis Tofin. However, should the Board be prepared to further pursue their most questionable objection to this claim AND AT ANY cost, Mr. Tofin then obviously has no other choice than to pursue the matter with his Appeal.

Residents have certainly commented on this matter, and openly advise that they are at a total loss, as to the absence of any relevant information being provided by the Board. Hopefully, the Board takes the above message serious and acts in a responsible manner.