- The Board rejected a request to correct false and misleading minutes of the 2018 AGM.
- The Board refused to respond to a request for some examples and costs of major items within repair and maintenance expense.
- The Board and the owner of the management company refused to provide clarification and their definition of “capital expenditures vs. repair and maintenance” and further refused to explain why Spadina Towers refuses to seek unit owner approval of reserve fund expenditures as is required by law.
- The Board refused to respond to questions of illegitimate expenditures, unnecessary spending, unapproved and illicit expenditures of more than $2 Million dollars, maintenance neglect, intentional concealment of financial records, absence of responsible employee supervision, conflict of interest issues within management, the commercial owners and the Board of Directors, explanation of surprise cash calls vs. a responsible funding plan, etc. The Board has been provided with substantial evidence of all of the above, yet rejects any request made for their response.
- The Board rejected a request for responsible application of Bylaws including the following:
b) The amount required for the reserve funds shall be determined by the ordinary vote of the unit owners at the annual general meeting. NO SUCH DETERMINATION BY UNIT OWNERS WAS PERMITTED. The Board neglected inclusion of approximately $700,000 in projected reserve fund expenditures including items as determined by themselves and items required as per the last Reserve Fund Study which the Board refused to have presented to residents.
Further, the Board has adamantly refused to provide a copy of the legally required resolutions of unit owners approving more than $2 Million dollars in reserve fund expenditures. Why this refusal and concealment of this fact? The Board rejected the Bylaws and the Act and simply proceeded with these major expenditures without unit owner resolutions. Such resolutions very simply, have never been permitted and do not exist.
- Questions regarding numerous operating and reserve expenditures were attempted but rejected by the Board as “complaints which they were not prepared to hear”.
- Questions regarding the Board’s failure to disclose material facts and concealment of commercial use of corporate funds ($25,000 plus) for their own private expenses and renovations were rejected. This amount included entrance renovations in commercial condo unit one that are the commercial owners responsibility. A professional opinion was sought and confirmed the same. Yet the Board bowed to commercial objection and apparently approved the expenditure, again with no approval of unit owners. Many other illicit uses of Corporate funds were also revealed in a resident review of invoices, but requests for any further reviews were adamantly rejected by the Board.
Fraudulent Concealment: the intentional failure to disclose a material fact and especially the existence of a cause of action by one under a duty to make such a disclosure to another who acts or fails to act in reliance and suffers a loss. Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
The Board rejected requests for discussion of the landscaping and signage expenditures. The Board has always disregarded the majority vote of unit owners supporting signage for Spadina Towers as per the following:
BUILDING SIGN At the 2013 AGM, 13 of 21unit owners attending the meeting voted in favor of a sign to be placed in front of the building so as to provide identity to the building. This was a vote by hand and therefore the majority vote was clearly in favor of the sign. This was acknowledged and confirmed in a recording of the meeting. The Board at the 2014 AGM, given the pressure of the commercial owner not to respect the 2013 vote of approval, suggested that the matter would be “left with the Board”. This is of course, a matter requiring the input of the residents and their voice and approval was heard at the 2013 AGM. This sign, which should be a sizeable lighted sign, should be centered on the front lawn. The building commonly known as SPADINA TOWERS since its inception, has long needed this identification. A proposal of a sign design should be submitted to unit owners as soon as possible for their approval and to ensure that the sign is installed during this spring/summer season. THE BOARD SIMPLY BOWED TO THE OBJECTION OF THE COMMERCIAL OWNER WHO CLAIMED THAT ANY FRONT SIGNAGE WAS TO BE COMMERCIAL ONLY AND REJECTED THE VOTE!
LANDSCAPING Spadina Board of Directors Face Liability Issues for proceeding with landscaping without a Special Resolution
Boily upholds condo owners rights The case of Boily v. Carleton Condominium Corporation 145, 2014 ONCA 574 (CanLII) involves a disagreement between the directors of a condominium corporation and the condominium residents. As a result of repair work done to a parking garage, the landscaping around the condominium was damaged. The directors proposed to make changes to the landscaping upon repairs, but the residents wished to have the work restored to the original design.The Condominium Act, 1998 sets out the requirements of the board of directors to acquire a majority rule to make any “substantial changes” to common areas. Following a ruling of a motion judge that the alterations constituted substantial change, and a meeting in which the new landscaping plan failed to get the required assent of 66 per cent, the directors hired a company to start on the landscaping work regardless.
After a second appearance in court – where the directors were again ordered to restore the original landscaping design, were held in contempt of the previous court order, and received personal financial sanctions – the work continued to progress with substantial deviations from the original design. On appeal, the court upheld that the directors were in contempt of court for continuing with the changes to the landscape
What can a person learn from this case? When living in a condominium, it is vital to understand the rules in place that guide the operation and day-to-day life in the building. What is a resident allowed to do, what decisions can the board of directors make, and what control does a resident have over decisions being made? In this case, it was only thanks to the understanding of the residents that they knew changes to the landscaping required their approval. Boily upholds condo owners rights.
The exact same situation has occurred at Spadina Towers with the exception that our resident owners were not permitted to vote on the matter at all. Yet, residents choose to remain silent, subjecting themselves to yet further and continuing demands for their money. Who will pay for the liability of this corruption and illegal Board conduct considering not only the above, but as well, the many other contraventions of our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act as they relate to this and many other expenditures?
Given the Board’s refusal to discuss or respond to the many requests regarding many issues including those noted above, it may unfortunately require a review of the Court to address these matters.
Dennis M. Tofin #603