At the Annual General Meeting held on Thursday, October 5^th, a number of proxies were registered prior to the meeting, but then rejected by the Board,  Our Bylaws provide in:

Section 7.10 Proxies

Every unit owner, first mortgagee, or other person entitled to vote at a meeting of unit owners may appoint a proxyholder, or one or more proxyholders, who need not be unit owners, to attend and act at the meeting in the manner and to the extent authorized and with the authority conferred by the proxy.

Board members sought support for “their position” by obtaining proxies from residents who were obviously misled by the misrepresentations within the ANNUAL AGM REPORT. THOSE PROXIES RECEIVED BOARD RECOGNITION, BUT PROXIES NOT OBTAINED BY BOARD MEMBERS, WERE REFUSED RECOGNITION. Several proxies of unit owners were duly registered prior to the meeting. However, in contravention of the law, including our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act, these proxies provided by several owners were refused recognition and their interests not permitted to be represented at the meeting.

The receptionist at the entrance to the meeting accepted registration of the proxies, however Board members shortly after the registration, refused entry to the proxy holder. Such classic behavior on the part of the Board, is not unusual but certainly reflects and confirms their ongoing illegal and oppressive conduct towards “selected” residents.

Such conduct of course provides reasonable cause for a demand upon the Board to call a legitimate AGM to be conducted abscent of such illegal procedures. This would provide the Board an opportunity to address and correct the misrepresentations within their prepared AGM report, and prepare and present a legitimate Reserve Fund Budget, and seek the required AGM approvals by resolution of unit owners as is required by law.

It is requested that the Board call upon unit owners immediately, to a legitimate AGM to be held within the next thirty days. Should the Board not respect this most reasonable request, a Court application will be made to order the October 5th meeting to be non binding and that a new Annual General Meeting be called as soon as possible..

The Board at the AGM held on Thursday, October 5th, refused to permit Dennis Tofin to attend the meeting. The reason provided for this refusal was that his October 1st condo fees were paid online to Spadina Condominum Corporation just as they have been paid for the past eight years. Canadian auditing guidelines have always recommended that condo fees be made payable to YOUR OWN CORPORATION, and deposited into YOUR OWN CORPORATION’S BANK ACCOUNT. NO COMMINGLING OF FUNDS WITH OTHER CONDO CORPORATIONS!

The Board is even refusing disclosure of our investment account statement which may very well be in the name of a Colliers McClocklin account. It is believed that the Board has used his online payment as a “technical” excuse for preventing Mr. Tofin from addressing the Annual General meeting and revealing comments and special information that the Board DID NOT WANT RESIDENTS TO HEAR.

The Board has become paranoid in recent years to the ongoing revelation of their inappropriate conduct where they have demonstrated many contraventions of our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act. (Refer to previous posts). Board members must be held accountable. Amended financial statements must be provided immediately due to numerous serious misrepresentations including the lack of a legitimate Reserve Fund Budget. Board avoidance of outstanding and concealed commercial owner arrears payable to the Corporation, must also be addressed and disclosed in the financial statements.

Residents were with no surprise, not consulted as required, nor permitted a vote, for illicit landscaping and signage capital expenditures. Many other issues outlined in the previous post REVIEW OF SCC 2017 AGM REPORT must be addressed as well.

The financial statements presented by the Board at the 2017 AGM of Spadina Corporation, included many inaccuracies and misleading information. The following includes comments intended to suggest the many amendments required in order to provide an accurate statement of the Corporation’s financial status…

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION

-Current Assets

1. The $106,500 reimbursed by the commercial owner (Note #8) subsequent to June 30, 2017 was as of June 30^th, an account receivable by the Corporation. It is a current asset and an amendment adding this to current assets is required.

-Current Liabilities

1. As of June 30^th, 2017, an account payable in the amount of $95,175 was not recognized. The obligation for this amount was outstanding as of June 30^th, and should have been included in current liabilities.
2. As of June 30^th, 2017, an account payable representing outstanding commitments “under the contracts” of $168,451 was not recognized in current liabilities as it should have been.

This results in a further amendment to effectively increase current liabilities by $263,626.

3. Note 4 states the $94,927 was expended from the Reserve Fund, yet note 8 advises that $95,175 in “additional expenses” were to be paid out of the Reserve Fund subsequent to year end. A further correction and amendment is required.

3. A further account receivable as of June 30^th requires a further amending adjustment for unpaid contributions by the commercial, as follows:

$5013 Fobs on 4^th floor doors

2360 Bike Racks

1068 Carts

2000 Fobs-door unit #1 (est)

10,442  x .4431 commercial share=  $4626.85 plus $7000 of unit owner funds used to pay for commercial condo renovations as revealed in a resident review of invoices. This equates to $11,625.85 receivable from the commercial owner plus whatever unknown amount is found upon a further review of invoices.

After recognizing the above amendments as per accrual accounting standards, the Reserve Fund balance at June 30th, is actually some $186,101 and NOT the $343,227 reported on the balance sheet. After receiving the account receivable of $11,625 PLUS from the commercial owner, the correct net reserve fund balance would increase accordingly.

ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING PRACTISE is defined as follows: 

A method where 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. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants requires that this method be used so as to yield statements that accurately measure the company’s operations and state of obligation with others. The Board has clearly neglected this required standard practise.

STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS

Expenses which are very troubling within the Statement of Operations, include:

1. Repairs and maintenance

-2013  $54,630

-2014    72,625

-2015    43,059

–2016  101,377

-2017  107,240

Maintenance expense has approximately doubled in the past two years. An explanation from the Board is necessary. What has happened to cause this dramatic increase? With the addition of a “highly efficient” heating system and new elevators, the promised savings in maintenance and energy savings were supposedly to be substantial. Net energy costs continue to escalate substantially, with no “dramatic decrease” as was promised with the new heating system. Further, the new heating system and elevators were to result in a substantial reduction in maintenance costs, yet these failed promises have resulted in a doubling of these costs. Residents of course are entitled to a breakdown of the these excessive repair and maintenance costs.

2. Professional fees:

– Rather than respect their obligations as per Section 10.1 Maintenance and Repair “The Corporation shall keep in a state of good and serviceable repair and property maintain the common property” the Board challenged a claim by Dennis Tofin against the Corporation for refusing to respect this fundamental Bylaw of the Corporation. The claim was for the cost of responsible address of maintenance deficiencies. Rather than make any attempt to settle or arbitrate the claim of $12,000, the Board chose to spend $48,000 in unit owner funds to challenge this very basic claim. The Board refuse to file an insurance claim for these most unreasonable legal costs (charged by the McClocklin’s own lawyer), and chose to simply spend unit owner funds. The question is of course, just why would any responsibly minded party, even consider paying some $48,000 to challenge a claim of $12,000 which could have been settled for even much less through a reasonable negotiation process which was offered to them. The Board refused negotiation and even an arbitration process which could have been conducted at minimal cost! Why did the Appeals Court refuse Spadina of their requested submissions to have all of their legal fees paid? THE COURT RULED THAT DENNIS TOFIN WAS IN FACT NOT RESPONSBILE FOR THESE COSTS! 

3. Site Manager and Caretaker Costs

Caretaker duties have been dramatically reduced over the past few years:

-Contractors have been hired for grounds maintenance

-Contractors have been hired for many mechanical maintenance duties (in unit mechanical and plumbing) no maintenance of Enercons or other in unit mechanical components

-Contractors have been hired for shampooing of hallways (we have shampooing equipment) This duty was conducted by all previous caretakers. Resident requests to the caretaker to shampoo serious hallway carpet stains, have been advised in response, that residents on their floor will have to “chip-in” to pay for the expense of getting their hallway carpet cleaned.

-Contractors have been hired to wash the garage floor. This was previously conducted at least every 60 days by our past caretakers. The current practise of washing only twice per year, has resulted in caking of dirt upon the surface which will now require a very expensive means to remove this.

Residents live in this building and care much more about tracking of this filth into their units versus Commercial tenants who have much less concern, as this is not their home.

-Contractors have been hired for painting of areas that could easily be done by the caretaker

-Contractors have been hired to replace thermostats, zone valves and other “in unit” heating components which could easily be conducted by the caretaker

-Residents have been subjected to unnecessary abuse when requesting assistance for personal “in unit assistance”. Example: a fee of $25 has been demanded of elderly residents to simply hang a framed picture. A payment of $25 to change Enercon filters has also been demanded of residents. This is obviously part of common area maintenance where no fee is at all appropriate..

-Both the caretaker and his wife have actually shouted at residents advising them to return to the vestibule and clean their shoes prior to entering the lobby. They have verbally assaulted a number of residents for various reasons including residents and those helping them in both moving into and out of the building.

-The caretakers have removed resident posts to the lobby bulletin board

-The caretakers have removed the waste basket from the mail box area, as this seems to be an Inconvenience to them and they are not being compensated enough for this major task.

-The caretaker in the past fiscal year, left the building on a Friday afternoon for the weekend, when an elderly resident had a serious drainage line backup. Fellow residents remained present during the visit of the contractor due to the absence of both management and the caretaker.

-The above list can well be extended much further.

-The caretakers wife, has received great appreciation for her efforts and contribution to the annual Christmas party. What residents do not realize, is that she has collected compensation for her “volunteer” efforts, in the amount of $500 plus reimbursement for her most “generous” contribution of her wonderful baking.

-Residents do not realize that the “caretakers” serve a great deal of time serving the commercial owner in the commercial units. The one and only resident review of conducted in 2015, revealed that the couple were compensated by our Corporation for their services provided to the commercial owner. Yet, residents have often been advised by management that the caretaker is not available because he is “too busy with his very important duties”. They receive payment (or do they?) from the commercial owner or have residents been paying for these commercial services in their fees?

-Residents do not realize that the caretaker and his wife are regularly compensated for “extra work” they do in the building. The review of invoices in 2015, revealed numerous invoices made by the caretakers to the Corporation, for which they received payment above and beyond their monthly contractual compensation. Their salary and benefits exceed $80,000 which is obviously ludicrous. On top of this, the commercial owner has a “live in” caretaker available at any time to provide their units with services.

The list goes on and on. Yet, any resident who dares questioning of the Board with concerns related to the caretakers, are immediately informed that they are not entitled to any relevant information.

The current caretaker was hired immediately after Mark Schreiner, our previous caretaker was fired by Colliers McClocklin management. Wendy Larmond was not contracted at the time for just reasons.

Unfortunately, the demands of Colliers upon Mr. Schreiner were well beyond reason.  (He was responsible for acting as building operations engineer at two other condominium properties AT THE SAME TIME and ON 24/7 CALL ON DEMAND BASIS at all properties. Yes, Mr. Schreiner was responsible for several properties 24/7 at $3000 per month. He paid for cleaning at Spadina Towers out of his $3000).

This versus the current $5000 per month plus benefits paid to the Larmonds. And yet, the required duties of the Larmonds have been reduced substantially!

There are qualified candidates available for the caretaker position at Spadina Towers, who would be very interested in a caretaker position with ONE PROPERTY at $3000 per month plus benefits currently provided to the Larmonds. That is a savings of $24,000 per year plus the additional fees that the Larmonds have been charging our Corporation.

RESERVE FUND BUDGET 

Unfortunately, what has been presented as a “RESERVE FUND BUDGET” in the financial statements, is NOT A RESERVE FUND BUDGET AT ALL. First of all, residents must be reminded of just what constitutes a legitimate RESERVE FUND BUDGET.

Section 10.4 Reserve Funds 

1. a) The Corporation shall establish separate reserve funds for the Residential Property and the Commercial Property, providing for the payment of:

1. i) any unforeseen common expenses; and
2. ii) for any major repairs or replacement of common facilities, common property or assets of the Corporation, including roofs, exteriors of buildings, roads, sidewalks, sewer, heating, electrical and plumbing systems, elevators and recreational and parking facilities;
3. b) The amount required for the reserve funds shall be determined by the ordinary vote of the units owners at the annual general meeting, by taking into account anticipated repair and replacement costs and life expectancy of the things mentioned in subsection (a), or as otherwise permitted or directed by the Act. The amount required for the reserve funds shall then be apportioned among the owners in accordance the scheme of apportionment set out in Bylaw No. 3. Owner’s contributions to the reserve funds are then payable in the amounts and at the times as determined by the board.
4. c) The reserve fund which has been designated for the Residential Property shall be used only for the reserve fund expenses allocated to the Residential Owners as set out in Bylaw No. 3. When such application will or may result in a shortfall in the reserve fund for the Residential Property, the board may submit a revised budget or special assessment to the unit owners, and in accordance with Bylaw No. 3, allocate the increase to the Residential Owners.
5. d) The reserve fund which has been designated for the Commercial Property shall be used only for the reserve fund expenses allocated to the Commercial Owner as set out in Bylaw No. 3. When such application will or may result in a shortfall in the reserve fund expenses fund for the Commercial Property, the board may submit a revised budget or special assessment to the unit owners, and in accordance with Bylaw No. 3, allocate the increase to the Commercial Owner.
6. e) In no event shall the unit owners approve an amount required for each of the reserve funds which is less than that required for the anticipated repair and replacement costs and life expectancy of the things mentioned in subsection (a), unless otherwise permitted or directed by the Act. In making their decision, the unit owners may rely upon the recommendation of the board as to the amounts required.

Section 10.5 Budgets

The board shall from time to time and at least annually prepare a budget for the common expenses funds and a budget for the reserve funds, in accordance with Bylaw No. 3, and determine by estimate the amounts necessary for the next ensuing fiscal year or remainder of the current fiscal year, as the case may be. The board shall then submit the reserve funds budget for approval of the unit owners, pursuant to section 10.4(b) above. The board shall advise all unit owners promptly in writing of the amount payable by each of them respectively, and shall deliver copies of each final budget on which such levy is based, to all unit owners shown on the unit register. 

Section 11.8 Capital Expenditures

Where expenditures are contemplated by the Corporation which are for the purpose of improving or adding to the common property, or common facilities, but are not for repair, renovation, maintenance, or replacement of the common property or common facilities, such expenditures may be included in the budget and collected for in the contributions for common expenses, if the same are first approved by a special resolution of unit owners and first mortgagees or other persons entitled to vote.

The Board has blatantly disregarded the above Bylaws and proceeded at their own discretion, approval of expenditures and their means of funding without the required consent of unit owners. This is obviously illegal conduct on the part of the Board.

The following are comments responding to what has been presented as a “Reserve Fund Budget”. This presentation is OBVIOUSLY NOT A LEGITIMATE RESERVE FUND BUDGET AT ALL but simply some general commentary on THOSE RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES, THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED IN A FORMAL RESERVE FUND BUDGET. 

ROOF ANCHORS– Current regulations and legislation, including that of the Section 116.3 Anchor Points and Anchor Plates, clearly provides AS IT HAS FOR MANY YEARS, that,

1. Where a worker uses a personal fall arrest system or a travel restraint system, an employer, contractor or owner shall ensure that an anchor point or anchor plate that meets the requirements of this section is used as part of that system.
2. As an employee, contractor or owner shall ensure that a temporary anchor point used in a travel restraint system (meets the required conditions of the ACT)

There are currently no legal requirements beyond what is clearly expressed in the Occupational Health and Safety Act as outlined above. Why is the Commercial Owner insisting that residents be deprived of common area window cleaning and address of leakage of windows at the same time?

REINSULATE and REPLACE MATERIAL ABOVE BALCONY DOORS AND WINDOWS- An accurate assessment of the necessary work and quoted pricing to conduct this work must be obtained and presented to unit owners for their approval.

BALCONY SUPPORTS- Again, a detailed assessment of this project is required including quoted pricing and presented to a General Meeting for unit owner approval.

POOL DECK and CONCRETE-detailed assessment including quoted pricing is required     

REDECORATION OF RESIDENTIAL COMMON AREAS-The last project was for the hallway carpets. It has been a disaster. Qualified comments have questioned why residents would have ever approved of such a carpet, obviously not intended for common hallway use. Project #1 unfortunately requires replacement of the current carpeting. No further hallway improvements should be permitted by residents until such time as the carpet has been replaced. 

RESIDENTIAL HALLWAY AIR CONDITIONING AND CHILLER 

Detailed assessment of this project is required including quoted pricing. As with any such CAPITAL EXPENDITURE (capital repair, addition or replacement as defined by law), unit resident consultation is mandatory. Resident interests require that the previously well functioning residential humidifier be installed. No commercial owner objection is appropriate. 

EXTERIOR CAULKING 

Caulking was done less than ten years ago. The north and west side of the building is most is most susceptible to caulking failure. At present, there have only been reports of leakage to a few residential units on these sides of the building. Repair to the currently leaking windows can easily be addressed with window caulking when our windows are being cleaned. The Board has prevented address to this problem, with the false position that window cleaning and window leakage repair cannot be completed until roof anchors are installed. This Board position has been proven to be false and misleading.

HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT

1. Completed plaza -Where is structural damage? With no evidence, we have wasted some $700,000, that could have been saved following a well respected professional’s submission of a $50,000 remedy.
2. Front landscaping-This is a capital expenditure that requires approval of unit owners via special resolution. No such approval was ever sought. Board members face liability for this illicit conduct. Board members are advised to review the Boily case vs. Carleton Condominium Corporation. This matter will be pursued.
3. Parkade vestibule and stairwells have been redecorated. A copy of tenders for this project is requested. The ludicrous estimate provided, must not be accepted by residents. Residents must be consulted.
4. Parkade power wash- Residents are deserving of much better. This is primarily a residential builing where clean floors demand a much greater standard than commercial tenants.
5. Sewer line replaced. Why is a common area sewer line shared with the commercial units attended to where residential sewer lines are neglected?
6. New building signage. A motion was passed at an AGM in 2014 approving new building signage identifying the building as Spadina Towers. Residents were to be consulted and participate prior to any final decision.The Board however falsely declared the motion was defeated as per an audio recording of the meeting. The required unit owner approval of the signage expenditure currently being installed, was not permitted. This is in contravention of our Bylaws.

TENDERS ARE AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY PARTICULARLY WHEN OUR CORPORATION’S FINANCES ARE IN A VERY PRECARIOUS POSTION AND SPENDING PRACTISES ARE OUT OF CONTROL!

Requests of residents for disclosure of tender documents have constantly been rejected by our Board. Requests have been made to the Board for copies of tender submissions for recent CAPITAL projects, including the elevators and parkade CAPITAL PROJECTS. A copy of any tender documents are hereby requested of the Board..

The Board is hereby advised that in response to their insistence that all CAPITAL EXPENDITURES referenced in our Corporations financial reports be declared as OPERATING EXPENSES, by doing so, they are obviously misrepresenting legally required financial reporting requirements that are explicitly required in Canadian Auditing Standards.

    REQUESTS TO THE BOARD

1. The Board has made the statement that “THE ORGANIZATION has approved a $950,000 cash call”. The Board is hereby requested to inform residents in writing as to WHO is in fact “THE ORGANIZATION”? NO RESIDENTS have participated in any such ‘ORGANIZATION APPROVAL” Obviously, this clearly demonstrates a most serious contravention of both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act on the part of the Board.

3. The Board is requested to provide written confirmation to the writer, of all past tender and invoice documents for all ‘CAPITAL REPAIRS”  or ‘CAPITAL EXPENDITURES” including those for the elevator, the parkade, and any other such projects. 

4. Please provide written authorization to enable, myself and/or other interested residents,to their entitled access and review of all invoices and other source documents including those previously reviewed by myself in early 2015 AND in addition, all invoices and other source documents, prepared subsequent to that review.

The motions proposed to amend our Corporation’s Bylaws, are most obviously, very shocking and well beyond reason in the minds of those residents who have any respect for common moral and ethical behavior. It is obvious that the intent of these motions is to attack and denigrate the integrity of myself, Dennis Tofin. I will never accept any criticism for my revelations of factual illicit conduct and disrespect for the law by our Board of Directors.

It is unfortunate that some residents, who may not understand or appreciate the laws established to ensure responsible governance of our Corporation, have failed to appreciate the vast extent of many breaches of conduct by our Board in respect to these governing laws.

Such breaches on the part of our Board, of both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act, are  well deserving of address. Most unfortunately, some of our residents prefer to rather than contribute to responsible address of these issues, choose to turn the other way rather than respect and seek an understanding of the facts surrounding such illicit conduct.

I personally, will not condone the clear disrespect of our Board for their failed adherence to the laws which govern all unit owners. I will continue as long as I reside in this building, to express my opinion and reveal the facts as they relate to any such conduct that disrespects residents and contravenes our laws.

Our Board has in recent years, IN FULL CONTRAVENTION OF OUR BYLAWS, spent well over one million dollars of owner funds, which was not legally approved by unit owners as per the provisions of our bylaws, but was in fact funded with illicit CASH CALLS with approval not by unit owners, but by the BOARD ONLY.

Residents, who have accepted without question, lacking and misleading information, have been assessed in the past few years, in contravention of our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act, with illegitimate (as per our Bylaws) CASH CALLS, for this one million dollar plus boondoggle. Now residents as of the 2017 AGM, are being further subjected to the Board’s continuing demands for further illicit cash calls. This has left our Corporation in a very troubling and precarious financial position today and going forward.

The required amendment to our financial statements will reflect a Reserve Fund balance of approximately $175,000 versus the reported $343,227. How could there be such a major and misleading discrepancy in our financial statements? The same discrepancy occurred in the 2016 financial report as well! These are major and very troubling discrepancies!  Just how long will residents remain silent when is they who pay for this illicit reporting of residents funds!

A further General Meeting must be held in the near future to address the many issues which cannot be addressed with the usual rush to adjournment by the Board. If residents deem themselves to be morally, ethically and financial responsible individuals, they will demand that the Corporation cease such illicit activity and withdraw these most disrespectful motions which are clearly intended to silence any opposing voice in support of democracy.

I respectfully submit that this report along with my response to the Dielschneider motion, be accepted and reported in the 2017 AGM minutes, as was the Dielschnieder motion included in the minutes of the 2016 AGM.

Lien Revenues SCC 2017 AGM

MOTION 3

“No Residential unit shall be rented without the Board approving the length of term of the lease or rental agreement. For greater certainty, the Board shall not approve leases or rental agreements with a term of less than six (6) months”.

Our current Bylaws 12.10 Tenants and Occupiers

1. a) No owner of a residential unit shall rent the unit until the unit owner has given written notice to the Corporation of the owner’s intention to rent the unit, setting out the address at which the owner may be served with a notice pursuant to the Act. Such owner shall then give written notice of the name of the tenant within 20 days after the beginning of the tenancy, and written notice that the unit is no longer rented within 20 days after the end of the tenancy.
2. b) A unit owner who leases or grants possession of a unit which is not a residential unit, to any tenant or occupier shall:
3. i) cause the tenant or occupier to undertake in writing to be bound by and comply with the bylaws of the Corporation; and
4. ii) give notice to the Corporation of the tenancy or the occupancy accompanied by the written undertaking of the tenant, tenants, or occupiers to be bound by the bylaws of the Corporation; provided that nothing herein shall in any way remove, waive or alter the responsibility of each such owner for the performance of all bylaws for all persons using or occupying his, her, or its unit

QUESTIONS:

1. Why does the Board feel they must approve the length of RESIDENTIAL unit lease or rental agreements?
2. What time period is being proposed for response to any such request for Board approval?
3. Why are any such proposed conditions not being required of commercial unit lease or rental agreements?
4. Has the commercial owner complied with Bylaw 12.10 b)(ii) Tenants and Occupiers, during their ownership? The Corporation (consisting of both residents and the commercial owner), must be provided with the notice of any tenancy and their required written undertaking as per Bylaw 12.10 b)(ii). It appears that no such compliance has ever been demonstrated. Will the commercial owner, now demonstrate compliance with this Bylaw?

Our current Bylaws appear to be working well in this regard (with exception to the non-compliance of #4). There is therefore no need to support any such motion at this time and certainly not until good reason for an amendment can be demonstrated along with compliance of the commercial owner to Bylaw 12.10.

MOTION 2

“A unit owner shall not do, permit to be done, or assist another unit owner to do any act or thing which causes the Corporation damage, additional cost, or increased cost. Any such damage, additional cost, or increased cost shall be the personal liability of such unit owners and shall be assessed against the unit owner and may be recovered by the Corporation under these Bylaws and/or the Act”.

It is rather unfortunate, that the Board fails to appreciate, that the sought measures of their motion, are basically addressed within the Bylaws of the Corporation which read as follows:

• Section 11.11 Enforcement of Bylaws In the event of any violation of the provisions of the Act or these bylaws by the owner, either by his or her own conduct or by the conduct of any other occupant of his or her unit: a) The Corporation or its agents have all of the rights and remedies which may be provided for in the Act, or these bylaws, or which may be available at law or in equity, and may and is authorized to prosecute an action or other proceedings against such defaulting owner, tenant and/or occupants for damages, injunction, specific performance, or for judgment for payment of money and collection thereof, or for a penalty as provided for by s. 99 of the Act, or for any combination of remedies, or for such other relief. The owner, on behalf of himself or herself, the tenant or other occupant, shall additionally be liable to pay to the Corporation all expenses incurred in connection with any such actions or proceedings, including court costs, the costs of solicitor’s fees on the basis as between a solicitor and his client, and any other fees and expenses.
• Enforcement of bylaws 99(1) If an owner, tenant or other person who resides in or on a unit contravenes a bylaw of the corporation, the corporation may take proceedings pursuant to The Small Claims Act, 1997 to recover from the owner, tenant or other person or any combination of them: (a) a penalty of not more than $500 with respect to that contravention; and (b) subject to the limits in The Small Claims Act, 1997: (i) compensation for any damage to the common property, common facilities or services units resulting from the contravention of the bylaw up to the deductible limit of the insurance policy obtained by the corporation; and (ii) any actual costs incurred by the corporation to enforce the bylaw against the defendant.

The only part of the motion that is not currently addressed in our Bylaws as noted above, is the part of the motion that states “A unit owner shall not do, permit to be done, or assist another unit owner to do any act or thing which causes the Corporation damage, additional cost, or increased cost”.

Specifically, what problem is the Board attempting to resolve by proposing an amendment to the Bylaws?

It is apparent that the intent of this motion is to discourage any concerned resident from considering questioning any action of the Board and further, to dictate and authorize prosecution of ANY SUCH  RESIDENT who dares to provide assistance to a fellow resident, where the commercial owner and Board object to such assistance. No resident should consider supporting such draconian and undemocratic measures. VOTE NO!

MOTION 1                                                                        2017-09-28

“All unit holders shall make payments in a manner approved by the Board. For greater certainty, the Board shall not recognize payments made by direct deposit to the Corporation’s bank account”.

Residents have unfortunately not been informed of matters of fact related to this issue:

• Spadina Condominium Corporation had for some 20 years, commencing in 1977, respected Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Canadian condominium accounting guidlines, by using two separate bank accounts, both of course in the name of SPADINA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION. One bank account was for the Operating Fund and another for the Reserve Fund.
• The following are general accepted guidelines for condominium corporations:
• The corporation must have at least two bank accounts, one designated as an operating account and one as a reserve account.
• Bank accounts must be solely in the name of the Corporation
• Unit owners since 1977, were provided with assurance that THEIR MONEY was being deposited into their OWN SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT in the name of their Corporation, with no COMMINGLING OF THEIR FUNDS with other condominium corporations.

1. However, the Board has permitted the commercial owner’s property management company to ignore responsible and generally accepted guidelines, which has in turn resulted in unit owner funds being deposited in the bank account of the commercial owner’s management company. at How much are we paying for a commingled account shared with many others, versus the fees paid for our Spadina Corporation private account which is not being permitted for use! I would ask, WHAT RESIDENT WOULD NOT SEEK ADDRESS OF EACH OF THESE CLAIMS?

• Residents have therefore lost the assurance of security of their funds in their own private bank account under the name of Spadina Condominium Corporation. Their funds are now deposited into the BANK ACCOUNT of a McClocklin owned company.
• This McClocklin owned company, combines OUR RESIDENT FUNDS with many “other parties”. This is referred to as “commingling of funds” and of course opens exposure to liability. If one of these “other parties” becomes subject to a legal finding of liability, our resident funds obviously become subject to the resulting shared liability exposure.
• Our Auditor for many years, DELOITTE, advised our Board, that McClocklin’s insisted change to using a single COMMINGLED BANK ACCOUNT, would definately result in much more time spent by the Auditor resulting in a much higher audit fee. Deloitte’s review of this COMMINGLED ACCOUNT, took substantially more audit time than what had previously been taken when we had for many years, used our own two bank accounts in the name of our own Corporation. Residents should simply request of the Board, a copy of the commingled bank account statement from the bank, where resident funds are deposited. You will in turn, be truly enlightened as to why this is a very troubling matter.

Residents do not realize that our Board approved the return to a segregated bank account in 2009 in the name of Spadina Condominium Corporation. I personally have made direct online payments to this account since that time, fully knowing where my funds were at. These payments have been made very efficiently via online transfers which are more cost efficient than the current arrangement demanded by Colliers. It is apparent that McClocklin’s wish to have total control of resident funds by insisting upon resident deposits into their own bank account. Knowledgable residents will appreciate these facts and VOTE NO!

In his motion presented to the 2016 AGM, Peter Dielschneider imposed the following condition upon Dennis Tofin: “that he stop writing abusive letters, or indeed any letters, to the board or to any board member”. The following is a summary of the subject matter of each of the written communications made to the board by Dennis Tofin. They were made in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016.

1. Preparation and discharge liens ($315.00 + 115.50=$430.50)(Colliers 70.00 Karen 105.00) (Colliers 40.00) (Karen 60.00) Cost to register lien $60.00-430.50=370.50 profit
2. 2015-10-15 Elevators-capital expenditure, no vote but a cash call
3. Rejection of resident funds being transferred “directly” into Corporation’s bank account
4. Lack of heat in perimeter heating lines
5. Inquiry as to the board promised “town hall meetings”
6. Electrical energy costs (actual city billings) net increase in energy costs.
7. Board-Reserve fund “of little advantage to us, no fixed function, unnecessary” Request for Brunsden to present study (Refused to permit Brunsden to present study)
8. Caretaker performance and disrespect of residents (i.e. Caretaker paid $500 plus extra for food-Xmas party)
9. Caustic leakage and stains on vehicles in my parking stall
10. Reserve fund budget- none/no approval
11. Lehrer issues (neglect of maintenance including Enercons and drainage lines)
12. Mechanical inspection requests
13. Window cleaning and leakage repair request (but commercial windows cleaned)
14. Preventive maintenance and neglect-drainage lines below unit boundaries
15. Accounting and allocation discrepancies
16. Request review of invoices ($30,000 plus in illegitimate allocations) $7,000 in commercial renovations

The Board advised me to contact McClocklin Group of Companies regarding several of the above issues. My response was of course, why would any such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the McClocklin Group of Companies and not the Board?  This clearly demonstrates a very serious and illicit conflict of interest!

Any resident has the right to communicate with the Board about condominium issues without being   subjected to any direction of the McCLOCKLIN GROUP OF COMPANIES! Requests for an explanation from the Board as to this illicit conduct, have of course been rejected!

Contrary to Mr. Dieschneider’s allegation of “daily” letters sent to the Board, which is blatantly untrue, only the above pertinent matters were communicated in writing to the Board. Any resident providing written inquiries, complaints or suggestions to the Board should certainly be entitled to receive a reasonable response from the Board. Only responses of illegitimate excuse for their illicit behavior has been received. The Board continues to provide no reasonable address to the above.

Submitted by Dennis Tofin

At the 2016 AGM, Peter Dielschneider made a motion effectively denying Dennis Tofin the right to maintain a website, to publish a newsletter, or communicate with our Board or access to any judicial process on the threat of being subjected to all the costs.

I respectfully state to Mr. Dielschneider, the Board and any others who may have supported this motion, that the conditions contained in the motion are in direct contravention of my fundamental rights under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. The Code states as per Section:

4. Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to freedom of conscience, opinion and belief and freedom of religious association, teaching, practice and worship.

5. Every person and every class of persons shall, under the law, enjoy the right to freedom of expression through all means of communication, including without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the arts, speech, the press or radio, television or any other broadcasting device.

6. Every person and every class of persons shall enjoy the right to peaceable assembly with others and to form with others associations of any character under the law.

Further, no person(s) shall disrespect my rights as per the fundamental values of, the freedom of thought, opinion and expression as provided in the Constitution Act and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 24(1) of the CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982, provides that “Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances”.
Spadinanewscenter.com is a secured web site that was established in 2013 to provide a centralized information and communication center for the benefit of Spadina residents. It is only accessible with a user name and password. Visiting this secured site is totally at the option of any resident who wishes to be kept informed. Thousands of such sites exist among condo associations in North America. Such sites provide a one stop communications hub for the benefit of owners. Many financial and relevant association documents can be maintained and easily accessed on the site (User name and password both SCC). The site is available to inform residents of association activities, concerns or issues expressed by fellow residents, educational segments as well as management and Board input, should they wish to contribute.
I have observed and personally experienced over the past several years, that our Board of directors upon receiving from residents any form of inquiry, complaint or suggestion, choses to ignore, harass, threaten or refuse these residents of services. This user friendly website provides a medium for expression of democratic expression of owner issues and ideas along with an opportunity to provide factual information for the benefit of all owners.

I have received many calls from residents over the years seeking clarity of many issues, particularly those regarding finances. The common questions include: why are we not informed throughout the year of our Reserve Fund status? Why have we not been asked to approve both the Reserve Fund expenditures with as well, approval of the means of funding (as is explicitly required by our Bylaws and the Act)? Further, why are we as residents paying for commercial unit renovations and other commercial unit expenses, along with many other very pertinent questions. Spadinanewscenter has addressed this concealment of information by the Board with fact based and informative articles in response. Residents should NOT SIMPLY DEMONSTRATE ACQUIESCENCE and SILENCE TO THEIR OWN RIGHTS AND INTERESTS.