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.