SCC REFUSAL TO COMMUNICATE
- On May 31st, 2021, all resident unit owners received written notice from SCC that a proposed amendment to the Bylaws regarding the scheme of apportionment of reserve fund expenditures received the consent of unit owners in a vote held on May 28th. Those owners who voted against the resolution were provided with written notice that they had the right to apply to the Court within 30 days to object to the amendment.
The position of myself and other residents on the matter was basically that 99% of condominium corporations in Canada and the United States apportion common and reserve fund expenditures on a unit factor basis which is clearly a fundamental and generally accepted means and fair allocation of costs. The provisions of both the Condominium Property Act and Regulations as well as our Bylaws, clearly respect this basic fundamental practice of condominium corporations.
On May 31st, 2021, I as the owner of units 402 and 603, provided a letter to chairman John Beckman and the Board of Directors, stating that their proposed resolution of May 28th did not receive the consent of 75% of the owners as required by Regulations of the Condominium Property Act. I further advised “Please provide within seven days, written confirmation that the Board has agreed that the proposed Bylaw amendment is totally invalid and will be advising residents of the same. Should I not receive this written confirmation within seven days, I will consider filling an application in the Court of Queen’s Bench seeking the Court’s invalidation of any such proposed amendment”.
Having received no response from Mr. Beckman, I proceeded with filing an objection with the Court on June 23rd, 2021. Mr. Beckman reacted by calling a general meeting of unit owners to be held on July 14th at which time he advised residents prior to and at the meeting that Dennis Tofin had filed a “lawsuit against they his fellow residents” and sought resident owner approval to incur legal costs to defend this alleged “lawsuit”. Residents, while very confused and understandably troubled, approved the Board’s request to spend their money to defend this alleged “lawsuit”. There was of course no “lawsuit” at all. I simply acted as the Board themselves advised unit owners of their right to file their objection with the Court”.
(2)
The ”OBJECTION” of Dennis Tofin to the Bylaw amendment was heard by the Court of Queen’s Bench in October of 2021. Evidence of the Board’s tampering with voting results obviously in violation of the law, was clearly acknowledged by the Court. The Judge’s decision of February 15th, 2022 included the following:
-“The Applicant sought the assistance of the Court. He requests the decision to amend the bylaw to a per unit contribution be quashed, including the subsequent allocation of condominium fees under the impugned bylaw”.
-“When I reviewed the procedures set out by the Board of Directors, the failure to obtain the requisite consent by the deadline established, and the notice provided by the Applicant, I am of the view there was an unfair disregard by ignoring the concerns and interests of the Applicant as well as unfair treatment of the votes of the condominium owners”.
-“The Applicant seeks costs in this application. The Applicant was clear that he did not seek to put the individual condominium owners to additional expense as a result of the approach taken by the members of the Board of Directors for the Respondent. However, these members have been elected to represent the interests of the condominium owners. As such, the Respondent is responsible for the payment of these costs”.
–Justice J.N.D. Crooks: “I order the following:
1. The application is granted and the bylaw amendment changing the apportionment of condominium fees to a per unit basis is quashed.
2. The Respondent shall pay to the Applicant costs in the amount of $1,000 forthwith”.
Mr. Beckman and the Board however refused to accept the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench and on March 11th, 2022 issued a NOTICE OF APPEAL, at yet further unnecessary expense to unit owners. The Board would then make yet a further attempt to seek resident approval to amend the Bylaws which only proved to receive even less support than the original vote. Unfortunately, this totally unnecessary process resulted in legal costs to unit owners of some $15,000 to $20,000. Had Mr. Beckman and the Board simply communicated with me and responded to my letter of May 31st, 2021, this matter could have been promptly resolved at no expense to anyone.
- On June 15th, 2021, only two weeks after my May 31st attempt to communicate with Mr. Beckman and the Board of Directors, a complaint from an 01 resident resulted in an
(3)
Inspection for bed bugs in several condominium units. Presence of bed bugs was found in several units including unit 402. I as the owner of unit 402 was as a result of the March 14th, 2021 flood impacting my unit 603, residing elsewhere at the time as were three other impacted unit owners.
On June 15th, 2021, only two weeks after my request for communication with John Beckman and the Board regarding the bylaw amendment issue, no attempt was made by the occupant of unit 402 nor SCC to contact me as the owner as to the inspection or any issue within unit 402. I would only learn more than two weeks later, on July 3rd from a fellow resident that unit 402 had experienced a bed bug issue. I would further learn that following the June 15th inspection, the Board unilaterally proceeded with contracting remediation services at a cost of approximately $10,000. Without my knowledge of the June 15th inspection nor attendance of contractors in the unit, SCC simply sent to me in mid July contractor invoices.
Just as was the case just two weeks earlier on May 31st, 2021, no one from SCC made any attempt to communicate with me on June 15th. Management and the Board have a duty to communicate with the owner immediately upon such an event. I was available 24/7 via telephone, email or text messaging. Upon receipt of notification of such an event, I would have been on site within ten minutes and addressed the situation on my own immediately requiring no involvement or expense to the corporation.
Not only did the Board refuse to contact me as owner of unit 402 on June 15th, 2021, but unlawfully removed and discarded personal property from unit 402 with replacement value of approximately $20,000.
Mr. Beckman has refused to respond to other requests as well. On August 13th, 2024, I learned that he and his wife assisted the occupant (Doris Galbraith) of my unit 402 to change the locks on the door including a lock that had previously been unlawfully installed by Ms. Galbraith and of which she had previously been ordered by the Court to remove. Upon repeated requests via telephone and email, I sought to determine why and when, Mr. Beckman and his wife assisted the occupant of 402 in changing the locks. Mr. Beckman advised that he was totally unaware of any change of locks to unit 402. However, he would later provide an email message indicating that he participated in arranging a locksmith to change the locks to unit 402 but refused my demands that he instruct the locksmith to restore the locks to their original status. Mr. Beckman was in regular communication with Ms. Galbraith’s lawyer, but both he and her lawyer refused to cooperate in restoring the locks.
Both John Beckman and Ms. Galbraith’s lawyer intentionally obstructed my access to unit 402 as of August 13th, 2024. On November 7th, 2024, I learned from Ms. Galbraith’s lawyer that she was in Toronto attending her son’s funeral. He would not provide me with the date of her departure nor her anticipated date of return. I would further learn that the
(4)
SCC caretaker met a family member of Ms. Galbraith who attended unit 402 and accompanied Ms. Galbraith on the day of her departure from the unit. Both SCC and Mr. Galbraith’s lawyer were fully aware of her departure but did not inform me at the time. When I did learn of her departure, I was immediately and gravely concerned as to the status of unit 402. After an ongoing dispute with Ms. Galbraith’s lawyer as well as Mr. Beckman as to their intentional obstruction of access to my own property, I advised her lawyer on November 19th, 2024 via email notice that I would be contracting a locksmith to restore the locks. He would respond by advising me that my restoration of locks would be unlawful and in breach of my occupancy agreement with his client.
On November 20th, I attended unit 402 with a locksmith who restored the lock and deactivated the “additional” lock that Ms. Galbraith had previously installed unlawfully. I then entered the unit and found conditions that required immediate attention. I arranged contractor remediation services and contacted Ms. Galbraith’s niece in Toronto, advised her of the situation and demanded that she immediately arrange payment for these services with the contractors. Had SCC contacted me in similar circumstances on June 15th, 2021, I would have acted immediately then as well with no need for participation or expense incurred by SCC.
Both SCC (Mr. Beckman) and Ms. Galbraith’s lawyer, clearly obstructed my access to unit 402 since August 13th, 2024 and particularly since my learning of her absence of November 7th, 2024.
Mr. Beckman refused to communicate with me on May 31st, 2021 regarding the bylaw amendment issue. He would further refuse to communicate with me two weeks later on June 15th, 2021 regarding the inspection of unit 402. He has since, refused to communicate with me regarding several other issues which impact my units 402 and 603.
The outdoor deck to unit 402 has been scheduled for replacement in 2025 as per the reserve fund study of 2020 approved by unit owners. At the December 19th, 2024 AGM, I asked for presentation of the reserve fund budget which was to include the scheduled expenditure for replacement of the concrete deck in unit 402. Chairman John Beckman refused to provide and review a reserve fund budget nor an appropriate review of the Corporation’s finances. He would further most rudely and disrespectfully advise the meeting that if the owner of unit 402 wanted his concrete deck replaced, he would have to file a lawsuit against the Corporation. His refusal to provide the AGM with an appropriate financial report and blatantly reject my request as to the status of the reserve fund budget including the deck replacement in unit 402 was simply shocking and clearly demonstrated irresponsible conduct and a total lack of respect for unit owners.
(5)
At the December 19th, 2024 AGM, I witnessed after my 30 years of residence in the building, the chairman’s most blatant neglect and disrespect of the financial interests of our resident owners. It is very troubling when the chairman refuses to present to unit owners a review of the corporation’s finances and to further, openly reject relevant questions from unit owners including a request for a reserve fund status and budget report. Mr. Beckman would even refuse to explain why thousands of dollars in GST appeared on the balance sheet, simply advising that it was “too complicated” to discuss. Residents continue to have no idea as to what impact these unanswered questions may have upon them.
This ongoing lack of communication and absence of transparency of SCC financial and other issues, is very disturbing and of substantial and unnecessary cost to unit owners. Refusal to communicate and respond to most valid resident concerns of the bylaw amendment issue on May 31st, 2021, resulted in totally unnecessary legal costs to unit owners of approximately $20,000.
Just two weeks later, on June 15th, 2021, SCC again refused to communicate with the owner of unit 402 and in turn unnecessarily involved the Corporation in addressing a matter which the owner could have easily addressed immediately on his own at no expense to the Corporation. Once again, refusal to communicate resulted in totally unnecessary costs to unit owners of yet another approximately $20,000.
Mr. Beckman and SCC have as well, refused to communicate with the owner of 402 and 603 regarding claims for reimbursement of insurance deductibles and associated costs of $2,962.00 relating to four separate events causing extensive water and flood damage as a result of failed perimeter heating lines and the major flood of March 14th, 2021.
Mr. Beckman has now once again failed to communicate with the owner regarding the Corporation’s obligation as per the unit owner approved Reserve Fund Study of 2020 requiring that the concrete deck of unit 402 be replaced in 2025. Mr. Beckman abruptly advised the December 19th, 2025 AGM, that the Board would not respect this previously approved and scheduled reserve fund expenditure and advised that the owner would have to sue the Corporation in order for them to act upon this SCC obligation. Mr. Beckman once again, is refusing to communicate or even discuss this matter with the owner and is apparently prepared to pay thousands of dollars of unit owner funds by insisting upon yet another litigation rather than simply accept responsibility for addressing the duties and obligations of the Board and the Corporation.
Dennis Tofin