The following letter is very relevant to Spadina Towers where management and the Board have demonstrated similar behavior to those in each of the three scenerios noted:

Letter: [The following letter is from a former contractor; the highlights have been added for emphasis.] I have just finished reading some of your pages and I think that there is one issue that is missing and that is important to address. I am a [deleted] by trade and have worked for 4 different companies before this. I finished my degree with night courses and have been employed for the past two years by the [X] ministry. What I want to explain to you is that for contractors [for repairs, maintenance, and installation], condos are an inexhaustible source of profits.

The first scenario goes like this: the contractor or one of the workers are related to either the manager, the management company or the superintendent or even a board director. Such an “in” gets a lot more contracts with much less competitive bids because the manager has an interest in seeing that you get work on a regular basis, or likes you personally. Lots of managers come from backgrounds like us and it’s easy to see how this develops and how they “feel” more for us than for their [condo] budget and the owners in a building.

The second scenario goes like this: there is a board that does not care or does not know better so it’s easy when a little something goes wrong, the manager calls you and you find the solution and charge a bit more for the repairs than you would do if the manager or board knew what they were doing, and then you point out that something else is wrong (even if it is not) and you “fix” this as well. A lot of guys [contractors] don’t see anything wrong with this because “If they are so stupid and have so much money to throw around, why shouldn’t we have a piece of the pie, we work hard”.

So when you have a board that is not knowledgeable and especially when they know or think that the condo is aging, it’s real easy to get them to spend, even if these “repairs” could wait a few years or it’s easy to overcharge a bit. And when on top of this the board depends on a manager that is on your [contractor’s]side, well you have it made.

A third scenario is that the manager sorts of rigs the contracts so that you end up getting the best bid and you win. She can do this because she knows who charges too much or more or better she lets us know how much the others propose to charge so we get this right. Or else we provide a real low bid and ask for more money later on during the repairs.

Finally I’ll add that when a board is ineffective and the manager doesn’t like to have too much work, and a contractor is doing a special contract job, the contractor always goes back to ask for more money, either because “something new came up that couldn’t be predicted,” or because “it’s taking much longer than anticipated.” Of course the boards or the managers always approve the increase. That’s why boards and managers should be careful how they word their contracts for a job. They should do it for the job and not for the time spent or other contingencies.

I’d say that nearly all contractors will do it given the opportunity; if your client is stupid or doesn’t care, why not? No harm done and good for job creation. But we don’t do it if a president knows what’s what and runs his ship well.

Unfortunately, the above scenerios describe the conduct of the management and Board at Spadina Towers. Those with qualifying experience in financial accounting and responsible property management, can easily identify this misconduct. Yet those NOT qualified in this regard, choose to vocalize and embarass themselves at General Meetings, where they clearly demonstrate their lack of any qualifying or relevant experience or knowledge.  They blindly and unconditionally accept the position of the Board, with absolutely no interest in supporting any request of accountability from management or the Board. These residents, unqualifed or lacking relevant knowledge, often find it easier to simply “fall in line” with the wishes of management and the Board, and with no self respect for their own interests, simply accept being a “faithfull subject of whom they apparently deem to be their master”. 

While the Board continues their annual six month hibernation, residents have been subjected to a most unacceptable delay of Board response to their questions and concerns. It is certainly unfair to residents when their interests are represented by Board members who are absent for much of the year.

1. The net Reserve Fund balance as of June 30^th, 2016 was effectively $395,887 (NOT THE REPORTED $488,892) after acknowledging and accounting FOR ALL PROJECTED RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES (which most notably, neglected the requirement of unit owner approval as per our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act). This is obviously a most material accounting discrepancy of almost $100,000! Most responsible Board members would resign upon this most disturbing disclosure!
2. After some Board members advised residents at the October, 2016 AGM that all proceeds from the cash call were TOTALLY COMMITTED, the treasurer then admitted in total contradiction, that the AMOUNT OF THE CASH CALL WAS IN FACT NOT TOTALLY COMMITTED, BUT WAS EXCESSIVE AND UNNECESARY, and that a substantial amount could be refunded to residents as a result. The meeting was left with no formal resolution as to address of this refund.
3. Residents were NOT advised that REPAIRS TO the patio area in front of the building, were to include IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE  EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF THE COMMERCIAL OWNERS including newly constructed steps and other unknown and unapproved improvements for their sole benefit. As residents had been advised that all RESERVE FUND/CAPITAL EXPENDITURES relating to the surface area of the parkade INCLUDING RESURFACING OF THE FRONT PATIO, were included in the COMMITTED EXPENDITURES presented to them as of June 30, 2016, any ADDITIONAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES relating to IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMERCIAL OWNER, WERE NOT, AND OF COURSE SHOULD BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COMMERCIAL OWNER. No such expenditure was presented to unit owners for approval in a Reserve Fund Budget. Hopefully, residents and particularly resident Board members, will not continue to bow to the wishes of the commercial owner and help them pay for any unapproved yet demanded IMPROVEMENTS by the Commercial Owner for their own benefit.
4. Residents have observed the recent painting and carpet replacement in the basement and stairwell area. The comments include, why was this RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURE not presented to residents for approval in a Reserve Fund Budget, and how could the Board inappropriately approve the estimated $9000 projected cost which is totally unreasonable and could have been completed for no more than one third of this cost. This is what happens with a NO TENDER POLICY, again at the unnecessary and detrimental expense to residents.
5.  What has happened to the approval demanded by unit owners to finally provide indentification of the building to its long term recognition as SPADINA TOWERS? It seems once again, our resident Board members have succumbed to the wishes of the commercial owner to not see this building identified as SPADINA TOWERS, but be identified with the primary recognition with the commercial owners name. The commercial owner is already entitled to their exclusive signage for identification of tenants. Identifiction of the building known as SPADINA TOWERS is beneficial to all unit owners and their is no valid reason for objection to prominent signage identifying the ENTIRE PROPERTY AS SPADINA TOWERS AS IT SHOULD BE. Can our residential Board members at least demonstrate in this regard, that they are not unduly influenced by the wishes (demands) of the commercial owners?
6. The Commercial Owner has refused to repay the Corporation for thousands of dollars relating to expenditures for their own exclusive benefit. This includes thousands of dollars in Corporation funds used for renovations in the commercial condominium units. In most condominiums, residents would raise not only objection, but refusal to participate in such costs. It’s about time the residents at Spadina Towers not allow themselves to accept such irresponsible conduct. Since a resident inspection of invoices of the Corporation as conducted in 2015 which revealed a shocking number and amount of “inappropriate” expenditures (thousands of dollars) and related conduct, THE BOARD HAS REJECTED ANY FURTHER REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES. THE OBVIOUS QUESTION OF RESIDENTS SHOULD BE IF NOT, WHY! Responsible residents will demand a review of invoices and related records since that review in early 2015. Unfortunately, irresponsible residents will not seek such transparency and will sadly contribute to such illegitimate expenses without asking any questions. Only at Spadina Towers!

Hopefully, residents will soon begin to question some of these issues on their own. It is only a matter of common sense. Simply agreeing to continue writing cheques upon demand without asking questions, is simply irresponsible on the part of residents.

Are residents really prepared to continue writing cheques for expenditures that are not legally approved without any respect for the required due process of unit owner approval as per the Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act?

Should any resident or Board member object to others questioning the conduct of the Corporation and the Board of Directors, and expect any reasonable respect, they are well advised to familiarize themselves with both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act and further, be prepared to support their position with direct reference to these laws, and as well, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Failing to do so, will only deem such resident objections to be without credibility and unqualified representation of both they and the interests of their fellow residents.