MEMO TO RESIDENTS June 17^th, 2022

       On February 15^th, 2022, the Court of Queen’s Bench issued a ruling that the Bylaw amendment proposed by the Board to alter traditional unit factor apportionment of Reserve Fund Expenditures, was invalid. As a result, a correction and credit to those negatively impacted by the unlawful assessments is in fairness necessary. On March 11, 2022, the Board issued a memo to residents advising that “there are assessment adjustments that need to be made to bring practice in line with Bylaw 3”. However, on June 8^th, 2022, the Board issued a further memo advising residents of their refusal to establish any corrective measure to correct the previous reserve assessments that were deemed invalid by the Court.

1. The Board’s memo states: “The Condominium Property Act specifically and clearly states that refunds of reserve assessments cannot be made. Within the Act there are no exceptions”. HOWEVER, the “reserve assessments” included in the Board’s proposed bylaw amendment presented to the Court for its review were deemed to be unlawful and invalid as a result of the Court’s February 15^th, 2022 decision. Provisions within the Condominium Property Act regarding “refunds of reserve assessments” DOES NOT APPLY TO UNLAWFUL AND INVALID RESERVE ASSESSMENTS. Therefore, a “refund” is certainly in order and payable to 02 and 03 owners immediately. As an alternative, a request can be made to the bank to simply issue a credit to the accounts of 02 and 03 owners and a charge to 01 owner accounts.

•  On February 15^th, 2021, Justice N.D. Crooks ruled that the respective amendment to the Bylaws as proposed by the Board, DID NOT receive the necessary support, effectively deeming all previous assessments to be invalid. It is important to note, that contrary to the Board’s declaration that “refunds of reserve assessments cannot be made and within the Act there are no exceptions”, all owners of 01, 02 and 03 units, who paid the unlawful $3000 assessment due June 30, 2021 were offered a full refund of their $3,000 payment. It is interesting that the Board deemed a full refund of an unlawful assessment of $3000 to be just fine when 01 owners were unlawfully assessed, but then refuse a refund to 02 and 03 owners for their excessive contribution to an unlawful assessment.

• It is important to ensure that the negative impact of the previous unlawful assessments be corrected with adjustments to the invalid assessments. As residents were advised subsequent to the February 15, 2022 Court decision, the following corrections are necessary (considering contributions to these unlawful assessments as of March 31, 2022):

-amount payable by 01-226 unit owners $ 891.98

-amount payable by 01-228 unit owners    944.51

-amount refundable to 02 unit owners       815.01

-amount refundable to 03 unit owners       132.21

A further correcting adjustment is required for each month subsequent to March 31^st, 2022.

Any responsible resident owner will demand prompt, fair and equitable address of this matter.

Dennis Tofin Unit 603

Unfortunately, residents were provided with only a fraction of the 2020 Reserve Fund Study. Why?

Brunsden & Associates advised the owner of units 402 and 603 in May of 2020 in a telephone communication that the “reserve fund study is in the Board’s hands as we speak”. Yet the Board would later advise that “the study was not received until September 28, 2020, Who is correct? The evidence suggests Brunsden was correct in the timing of their submission of the study. Why did the Board sit on the Study for some four months? What changes to the Study did the Board request” and if Brunsden did make any of the requested changes, what specific changes were made?

The Board advised that Brunsden made numerous errors in the Study and that they found it necessary to prepare their own projection for reserve fund expenditures. Why did the Board not simply advise Brunsden of the “errors” in the Study provided to the Board on May 14th, 2020 and simply request prompt correction of any “errors” at that time? This would have prevented a great deal of unnecessary confusion among residents

On page 22 of the Study, it states “All exterior windows from the ground floor to the top floor, are owned by and the responsibility of the condominium corporation/association”. On the same page, it states “The windows in both the commercial and rersidential units are the responsibility of the specific unit owner. Thus, no funding if identified for them”. Why did the Board not request a correction of this in the Study? THE FACTS ARE: The registered plan of the building clearly provides that exterior windows and decks are beyond the legal boundaries of condominium units and are common area of which the Corporation is responsible for repair and maintenance.

On page 24 of the Study, it states “The condition of the concrete deck surface under the center 4^th floor balcony could not be inspected and verified as it is covered by indoor/outdoor carpet which was not removed to enable the concrete to be observed”.

Brunsden was however provided in October, 2019 with detailed information and documents including photographs of the “structural problems” with the deck of unit 402.

Why was the carpet not simply peeled back for inspection? Evidence of “structural issues” was clearly evident even without peeling back the carpet. Further, the owner of the unit, was available and prepared to assist at the time of Brunsden’s visit to the property but management made no attempt to contact the ownner and enable Brunsden’s access to the deck for inspection.

The Study further states: “The condition of the center 4^th floor residential concrete deck surface could not be ascertained. Funding has been provided to repair the concrete deck surface in five years, if required.” So if the condition of the deck surface could not be “ascertained” then why does the Study state “Funding has been provided to repair the concrete deck surface in five years, if required”. It appears that the Board requested deferal of the deck replacement in the study. The owner cannot accept this “intentional” refusal of Board address to this deck structure issue preventing the owner from replacing the carpet and enabling private use and enjoyment of the deck. Yet the Board had no problem installing a new tile surface on the deck in front the 4th floor meeting room adjacent to the deck fo unit 402. The owner of 402 has made many requests over many years to the Board to address this issue only to be met with blantent neglect and refusal to respond. The Board is clearly liable for this negligence and very disrespectful conduct which has for many years, seriously impacted the market value of unit 402 and even prevented resale given this serious structural problem. I ask that immediate written confirmation be provided to the owner that the replacement of the deck of unit 402 will be completed by the spring of 2021.

November 26, 2020