1. The Board refused to present a Reserve Fund Budget for the review and approval by unit owners as is required by the Bylaws and the Condominium Act. On one hand they state that any such expenditures are unknown as of October 6, 2016, YET at the same time, they state that residential and other common area expenditures will be conducted strictly at the Board’s discretion. This is a very obvious contravention of the Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act, particularly when residents are refused their right to vote.
2. The Board failed to ensure that unit owners were provided an opportunity to ask questions of the attending Auditor as is recommended within Auditing Standards.
3. The Board failed to permit unit owners to appoint an Auditor as is required by the Bylaws.
4. The Board failed to address the status and required address, of the considerable deferred maintenance.
5. The Board misled residents by advising that the Corporation “has always used cash calls”. This is false and misleading. Dennis Tofin was on the Board for 14 years and only once was a cash call made to unit owners. At each AGM over the past few years, the treasurer advised the meeting “we have always used cash calls. NO reserve fund budget is necessary”. He continued by stating, “the Board will appoint the accountant! There will be no vote!”  A rather unbecoming statement coming from a professional accountant, when our Bylaws clearly require appointment of the Auditor by the unit owners at the AGM. With an extensive lobby effort by Board members (including the owner of the management doing our monthly accounting) to NOT have an audit for the year ended June 30, 2016, conflict of interest issues become very apparent.
6. The Board mislead residents with advisement that the Corporation’s deductible for liability insurance was $25,000 when in fact it is only $1000. Further, they falsely claimed that the legal fees “are not insurable”. The Board further failed to respect that the Bylaws require that “the insurance deductible shall be that as approved by unit owners”. The Board mislead residents by stating that $17,300 in legal fees could not be paid as “reserve funds were totally committed”. After collecting the remaining $450,000 from the cash call, and then paying the “remaining commitment under the contracts of $524,580, a cash balance of $400,462 remains in the funds. Given this fact, the Board failed to provide a reasonable explanation as to why a cash call for $17,300 was required and no insurance claim was initiated.
7. With one Board member stating emphatically that “all remaining funds are totally committed”, the treasurer then advised the meeting that the “excess funds could be refunded to unit owners”. This contradiction left most residents rather confused. However, the treasurers statement clearly suggested that ALL REMAINING FUNDS ARE IN FACT NOT COMMITTED! If there was a FURTHER committment of funds, then it is required that they be reflected in the financial statements. On the other hand, why was this $400,000 excess of cash not been duly reflected in the financial statements?
8. Canadian Accounting Standards state that “revenues are recorded when they are earned, even if money has not yet been received, and expenses when they are incurred, even if payment has not yet been made so as to yield statements that accurately measure the company’s operations and state of obligation with others”.  Spadina Condominium’s financial statements have clearly NOT met this required standard. It should be noted that the Auditor failed to recognized inappropriate expenditures and other accounting irregularities brought to the attention of the property manager by residents. A report to the Board and management should have been presented to the Board by the Auditor advising them of these accounting “irregularities”. Further, a contingency should have been reflected in the Audited financial statement to ensure disclosure of the irregularities. An amended Auditor’s report should be prepared to ensure full transparency and a full accounting of these issues. Management and the Board failed to respect their obligation to disclose to the Auditor, their receipt of requests from residents to address these financial “irregularities”. The Auditor is then required to address these issues and ensure any required amended entries that are required in providing an “accurate Audited report on the Corporation’s financial affairs.”
9. For a number of years, the Board has insisted that doors and windows are the responsibility of unit owners. As stated by the chairman at the time Mel Malkin, “any replacement of front windows by the Corporation was before my time”. It is on the record, that while Mr. Malkin was on the Board, SIX front windows had in fact been replaced at the expense of the Corporation. Then while on the Board, Peter Dielschneider responded to a request of Eleanor Williams for replacement of her front window which had been neglected by the Board for several years. His response read: “The Condo Act was revised in 1993 placing the cost of windows in the hands of the owner. In declining the request, the Board is following the Act”. Mr. Dielscneider mislead residents with an obvious misrepresentation of the Act which DOES EFFECTIVLY REQUIRE “PLACING THE COST OF WINDOWS IN THE HANDS OF THE CORPORATION AND NOT THE UNIT OWNERS AS WAS FALSELY DECLARED BY MR. DIELSCHNIEDER”. It is very troubling when a former Board member makes such a flawed and misleading declaration. After publically rejecting, criticizing and demeaning Dennis Tofin for his year after year requests of the Board to respect the Condominium Act as it relates to front windows, the Mr. Dielschneider and the Board finally in the fiscal year ended June 30^th, 2016, (not several years ago as the meeting was informed) have finally admitted that their position for a number of years, had in fact been wrong and in contravention of the Act. The provisions within the Act are very clear, yet the Board paid for “professionals” to explain the obvious provisions of the Act to them, of course at the expense of unit owners. An apology from Mr. Dielschnieder and the Board is certainly due to Mr. Tofin. An apology and reimbursement to Eleanor Williams is also due from the Board.

10. Brent Dunlop advised the meeting of personal comments that he alleges came from Mr. Tofin. He is referring to one late evening in 2015, when he rapped on Mr. Tofin’s door with a memo in his hand, provided to him by Wendy Larmond. Upon getting out of bed and opening the door, Mr. Tofin was immediately confronted by a very obnoxious Mr. Dunlop, who using some special rated language, asked why a memo that Mr. Tofin had delivered to only a few individuals, was not delivered to him. Mr. Tofin, immediately advised him that he was simply not an intended recipient of the memo. He later advised that Wendy Larmond provided him with a copy. No memo was delivered to Mrs. Larmond either, and it was obvious that she “unlawfully” obtained from a source which the Board should disclose immediately. Mr. Dunlop was asked to request from Mrs. Larmond her source of the document and provide it to Mr. Tofin, but he did not. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD MAKE THAT REQUEST OF MRS. LARMOND. It is only reasonable that Mr. Dunlop and the Board issue an immediate apology to Dennis Tofin for the unacceptable conduct of both he and Mrs. Larmond.
11. It is most interesting that a Board member was complaining about not receiving a memo that others received, and then turns around and threatens retaliation against a resident for distributing a memo to anyone. This of course brings grave concern as to the continuing abscence of democracy in our building. Unfortunately, Mr. Dunlop avoided any mention of  mutual agreement that the proposed statement of claim would be open to discussion in order to seek resolution without the necessity of a court action. Mr. Dunlop and the Board never did make any attempt to discuss the matter.
12. The Board (Tom McClocklin Sr.) misinformed the meeting, in advising that Mary Lehrer (unit 1002), had a sewer backup into her unit as a result of “her plumbing”. This is again, a false and misleading advisory comming from the Board.The problem was due to a major blockage in a lateral drainage line below her unit in the common area, which is the responsibility of the Corporation. Again, the Condominium Act is very clear in defining the legal boundaries of units. Must residents yet again, bear the cost of seeking a “professional opinion” because the Board does not understand the relevant sections of the Act? More importantly, why must Mrs. Lehrer pay the $2500 plus bill for removing the blockage in the common area?
13. Mary Lehrer, had hoped to attend the AGM to voice her objection to the $278.53 cash call she received for legal fees. Unfortunately, she was unable to attend. Mrs. Lehrer recently received, prior to the AGM, a notice of registration of a lien against her unit for non payment of this amount. It appears that the Board will now make a further assessment against her for registration and discharge fees of approximately $500! Such oppressive conduct on the part of the Board against residents who have resided and contributed to the building for much longer than any Board member, is deplorable! Any reasonably minded resident, should express to the Board immediately, their objection to such oppressive conduct which is absolutely shameful!
14. A resident advised the meeting that concerns expressed by Dennis Tofin, were “minutia and old stuff” and that “we assume that the Board acts on our behalf”. To SIMPLY ASSUME that the Board “ACTS ON OUR BEHALF” without responsible scrutiny by unit owners, is clearly, both naïve and irresponsible. To describe opposition to the efforts of others to bring attention to the many thousands of dollars in inappropriate expenditures by the Board, as minutia and old stuff, demonstrates a lack of understanding responsible financial management. It is most unfortunate, that residents with little if any financial or business knowledge, make such statements which are not accompanied by facts or supporting references to the Bylaws and Condominium Property Act. Such residents feel entitled to criticizing others, but demonstrate little if any effort to seek any meaningful address to the issues SUPPORTED BY FACTS.
15. The Board advised the meeting, that it is “not possible to deal with Dennis Tofin” and asked Mr. Tofin, “Are you accusing us of not abiding by the Bylaws and Act?” No Board member has ever made any reasonable attempt to discuss the many issues of the Corporation with Mr. Tofin, and yes, he has unfortunately found it necessary, to remind the Board of their many contraventions of the Bylaws and Act. Yet, the Board maliciously attacks Mr. Tofin for providing such reminders to them.
16. Regarding Peter Dielschneider’s motion to the meeting, he clearly mislead the meeting, with his many false, misleading and defamatory accusations against Dennis Tofin.  Who is he to pursue yet further oppressive conduct upon Mr. Tofin, simply because of Mr. Tofin’s relvealing of inappropriate and unacceptable Board governance practices. What is most shocking, is the obvious and disturbing neglect on the part of Mr. Dielschneider, to acknowledge the many breaches of law by the Board of Directors. While both on and off the Board, he criticized and demeaned Dennis Tofin for his attempts to remind and inform the Board of their obvious and unacceptable breaches of the law.

PLEASE BE ADVISED:

1. There will be no “shut down” of spadinanewscenter.com. The site clearly provides a REALISTIC assessment of Corporation activities from a responsible resident perspective, supported by facts. Further, the site provides a great resource center with information and educational segments, along with a library and history of documents specifically related to the Spadina Condominium Corporation. CONTRARY, to critics including the Board of Directors, site access is restricted to unit owners of the Corporation who are enabled access with a special password.
2. Contrary to the statement of Mr. Dielschneider, there is no “published newsletter” provided by Dennis Tofin. When it is appropriate, Mr. Tofin has sent to residents, excerpt posts via a printed memo from spadinanewscenter.com, where it has been determined that residents be informed when the Board has failed to inform or advise residents of information relevant to them.
3. Written communications to the Board will continue whenever Dennis Tofin deems it to be necessary. Mr. Dielschneider’s statement that Board members have been bombarded with communications from Mr. Tofin, is false, misleading and simply, yet another malicious attempt to villainize Mr. Tofin.

Both Mr. Dielschnieder and the Board mislead residents with a false and misleading accusation that Dennis Tofin has been harassing Board members on a monthly, weekly and daily basis. Mr. Tofin has only communicated with the chairman when deemed necessary, and has made very few if any telephone calls or written communication to any other Board member over the past year. It should be noted that Board member Sandy Rees, recently advised Mr. Tofin to communicate with the McClocklin Group of Companies. Incidentially, one must ask, what is an employed secretary of the McClocklin Group of Companies, doing in giving any resident any such instruction? Mr. Deilschneider and the Board have yet again provided false and misleading statements in an effort to silence any questioning of Board governance practices.

All communications from Mr. Tofin have valid reason, and such false accusations, are only a strategic effort on the part of the Board to silence Mr. Tofin in his most entitled and reasonable efforts to seek responsible address of issues by the Board.

There were several supporting comments of Mr. Deilschnieder’s motion, however they were totally without merit and not worthy of address.

17.Residents are well advised to very carefully review the facts of the issues presented and as well, pay particular attention to the issues Mr. Tofin revealed which the Board had attempted to conceal.  Any resident is well advised to ensure that any position they may have left the AGM with, must be supported by facts and not simply references to inaccurate and misleading rhetoric that they may have heard from the Board at the meeting.

It is very unfortunate that the vast accumulation of operational issues requiring address, were not permitted presentation for discussion at the AGM. This includes the matter of window cleaning and required window sealing repair that has not been conducted for two years. In the meantime, several units continue to be damaged with water leakage due to neglected repair of failed caulking on the exterior of the building walls, to be conducted at the same time as window cleaning. The Board has misled residents with their ongoing assertion that we must spend some $100,000 on anchors in order to enable cleaning of windows and related caulking maintenance and repair. No mention of anchors appears in the Reserve Fund Study report, of which the Board has rejected Mr. Tofin’s request for presentation by its author. Contrary to inaccurate minutes of the 2015 AGM, the Reserve Fund Study WAS NOT PRESENTED BY MAURICE DUVAL AT THE 2015 MEETING. No such presentation “APPEARS ON THE RECORD”, yet the 2016 AGM refused to reflect this correction in the 2015 AGM minutes! THE RESERVE FUND STUDY must be considered (as per the Condomium Act Regulations) by unit owners in their review and approval of the Reserve Fund Budget. Yet, the Board has refused to present a qualified presentation of the Study by its author.

IN FACT, NO REQUIREMENT FOR PERMANENT ANCHORS IS REQUIRED, AS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE OFFICE OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY. Yet the Commercial windows were cleaned on April 28, 2016, just before the commencement of grounds construction and the related dust conditions immediately adjacent to the commercial front windows. A LOCAL CONTRACTOR HAS ADVISED THAT THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO CLEAN ALL WINDOWS THIS FALL, GIVEN SUFFICIENT NOTICE AND REASONABLE WEATHER CONDITIONS. The Board, and particularly the commercial owner, has maintained and clearly misinformed residents by clearly mistating that permanent anchors are required.

It is also most unfortunate, that some residents once again, remain silent with no objection to what they have heard and didn’t hear from Board members at this meeting. Some even unconditionally “assume that the Board is acting on their behalf”. These same residents, are however, most willing to criticize those more consiencious residents who make at least some attempt to bring attention to issues where the Board is NOT acting responsibly on their behalf. No responsible unit owner is willing to permit the Board  to continue spending at their own discretion, residents money without any reasonable accountabililty and transparency. This includes resident entitlement to their legal right of participation in review, discussion and approval of expenditures of the Corporation. Responsible residents should insist that the BOARD IS NOT PERMITTED TO APPROVE ON THEIR OWN, ANY RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURE. THEY SHOULD INSIST ON UNIT OWNER APPROVAL OF BOTH THE EXPENDITURE AND THE MEANS OF FUNDING THAT EXPENDITURE. THIS IS WHY A RESERVE FUND BUDGET MUST BE PRESENTED TO UNIT OWNERS FOR THEIR APPROVAL AT THE AGM AND AT FURTHER GENERAL MEETINGS IF FURTHER EXPENDITURES REQUIRE APPROVAL. UNILATERAL BOARD APPROVAL OF RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES AND THEIR MEANS OF FUNDING IS UNLAWFUL. 

It is astonishing that residents remained totally silent, upon hearing that some $30,000 plus in inappropriate expenditures were being considered or already paid at the time of Mr. Tofin’s review of invoices, including thousands of dollars of commercial owner expenses. This is obviously very disturbing. Many residents have apparently, due to possibly lack of reasonable finance and management knowledge, simply accepted the position that has been quoted by a resident; “WE ASSUME THAT THE BOARD ACTS ON OUR BEHALF”. NO FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PERSON WILL EVER SIMPLY ASSUME IN THE ABSENCE OF SCRUTINY, THAT THE BOARD SHOULD BE LEFT WITH TOTAL AND UNQUESTIONED DISCRETION AS TO USE OF THEIR FUNDS. 

The scrutiny of management and the Board deemed necessary by Mr. Tofin, has resulted in at least some prevention of the commercial owner using Corporation funds for its own benefit. This scrutiny has saved residents thousands of dollars. There are however, many more thousands that could be returned to the credit of residents. This can only be achieved with responsible resident scrutiny of operations and financial management of the Corporation.

In conclusion, a very important message:  All Board members and a number of residents, have clearly demonstrated most inappropriate objection to Mr. Tofin’s many legitimate requests of the Board, to address the many deficiencies demonstrated within the conduct of the Board as it relates to their legally required address of both operational and finance issues. It should be noted, that all statements and observations provided by Mr. Tofin, are fully supported by THE FACTS.