CondoVoice - Summer 2007

www.ccitoronto.org

VOL. 11, NO. 4 • SUMMER 2007

P U B L I C AT I O N O F T H E C A N A D I A N C O N D O M I N I U M I N S T I T U T E - T O R O N T O & A R E A C H A P T E R P U B L I C AT I O N D E L’ I N S T I T U T C A N A D I E N D E S C O N D O M I N I U M S - C H A P I T R E D E T O R O N T O E T R É G I O N

IN THIS ISSUE ■

Understanding the Relationship Between Board and Management

■

Dealing with Marijuana Grow Operations

■

A Bad Case of Mould

■

An Important Update on the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005

■

What Happens if Boards Don’t Abide by the Condo Act?

■

Ecology and Economy - Can They Go Hand in Hand in a Condominium Retrofit?

Heeding Professional Advice in Good Faith

… and more PM #40047005

4NBSU TVTUBJOBCMF TPMVUJPOT ZJFME B

MPX SJTF IJHI SFUVSO )PX B SFTJEFOUJBM SFWJFX BU 8JOE¾FME 5FSSBDF XPXFE UIF CPBSE

8JOE¾FME 5FSSBDF $POEPNJOJVN 6OEFSUBLJOH B CVJMEJOH NBLFPWFS XJUIPVU EJTUVSCJOH UIF SFTJ EFOUT JT OP TNBMM GFBU 5IF CFTU XBZ UP UBDLMF JU &G¾DJFOUMZ 8JOE¾FME 5FSSBDF /PSUI JOWFTUFE JO BO FOFSHZ SFUSP¾U 5IFZµSF OPX TBWJOH BOOVBMMZ BOE XJMM QBZ PGG UIF QSPKFDU JO KVTU ZFBST *NQSPWFE MJHIUJOH VQHSBEFE CPJMFST BOE B CVJME JOH BVUPNBUJPO TZTUFN XJMM FOTVSF DPOUJOVFE TBWJOHT FWFO BT FOFSHZ DPTUT SJTF "U 5PSPOUP )ZESP &OFSHZ 4FSWJDFT PVS BTTFTTNFOU JT UIPSPVHI PVS BQQSPBDI JT UBJMPSFE ZPVS TBWJOHT BSF HVBSBOUFFE 4FSWJDF … &OFSHZ &G¾DJFODZ 3FUSP¾U 3FTVMUT … 1SPKFDU DPTU … *ODFOUJWFT … "OOVBM TBWJOHT … 1BZCBDL QFSJPE ZFBST

'JOE PVU IPX JOWFTUJOH JO FOFSHZ FG¾DJFODZ XJMM EP XPOEFST GPS ZPVS CPUUPN MJOF "OE UIF FOWJSPONFOU

7JTJU 5)FOFSHZTFSWJDFT DPN PS DBMM &IGURE AND STAR DESIGN IS A TRADEMARK OF 4ORONTO (YDRO #ORPORATION USED UNDER LICENCE

Contents Canadian Condominium Institute / Institut canadien des condominiums Toronto & Area Chapter 2175 Sheppard Ave. E., Suite 310 Toronto, Ontario M2J 1W8 Tel.: (416) 491-6216 Fax: (416) 491-1670 E-mail: cci.toronto@taylorenterprises.com Website: www.ccitoronto.org

Features

6 10

Retrofits can be perfect partnerships between ecology and economy and leave a lasting, positive legacy.

14

Armand Conant, B.Eng., LL.B., D.E.S.S. (Chair, Legislative Committee) Maclaren Corlett LLP Mario Deo, LL.B. (Co-chair, Public Relations Committee Member, Conference Committee) Fine & Deo LLP SECRETARY/TREASURER Bob Girard, B.Comm, RCM (Chair: Special Projects Committee) AA Property Management & Associates

BOARD MEMBERS

17

Brian Horlick, B.Comm., B.C.L., LL.B., ACCI (Co-chair, Public Relations Committee) Horlick Levitt Barristers & Solicitors Lisa Kay (Member, Membership Committee, Conference Committee, Website Committee) Maxium Condo Finance Group Tom Park, P.Eng (Member, Membership Committee Member, Website Committee) Golder Associates Ltd. Vic Persaud, BA (Chair, Website Committee Member, Membership Committee) Suncorp Valuations Ltd. Bill Thompson, BA, RCM, ACCI (Chair, Membership Committee) Malvern Condominium Property Management

EX OFFICIO DIRECTOR Jasmine Martirossian, B.A., M.A., PhD.

ADMINISTRATOR - Lynn Morrovat ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT - Josee Lefebvre

by David E. Thiel

A Bad Case of Mould - Goodwin v. DCC No. 54

by Lou Natale An example of potential liabilities facing corporations and board members who fail to comply with their legal obligations to repair and maintain common elements.

21

Caught in the Act? - An Important Update on the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005

by David Crudele, B.A., LL.B. Corporations employing security guards, concierges, superintendents or other security-like personnel should become familiar with new Legislative Act.

22

Gina Cody, P.Eng., M.Eng., Ph.D., ACCI, FCCI (Chair, Education Committee, CAI Liaison) Construction Control Inc. Henry Cohen (Member, Membership Committee) YCC #0074

Dealing with Marijuana Grow Operations Steps to be considered both to protect the building and health of the residents as well as attempting to maximize recovery of costs and expenses.

PAST PRESIDENT Janice Pynn, RCM, ACCI, FCCI (CCI National Liaison, CAI Liaison) Simerra Property Management Inc.

Ecology and Economy - Can These Go Hand in Hand in a Condominium Retrofit?

by Tim Stoate

PRESIDENT

VICE-PRESIDENTS

by Michael H. Clifton It is incumbent upon the directors of a condominium corporation not only to do as their professionals advise, but to hire, inform, and rely upon them.

2006/2007 Board of Directors John Warren, C.A. (Co-chair, Conference Committee, CAI Liaison) Adams, Masin & Tilley LLP

Heeding Professional Advice in Good Faith

Understanding the Relationship Between Board and Management

by Alan Rosenberg Establishing and maintaining good standards contribute positively to the relationship between the board and management.

26

Standard Unit By-law - How Does This By-Law Work?

by Marco Graziani and Mario Deo Without clarification of this bylaw, disputes may arise between a corporation and unit owner after damage occurs in a unit.

31

What Happens if Boards Don’t Abide by the Condo Act?

by Donald Graves The Condo Act requires board members to act in good faith and due diligence i.e. a fair, impartial and consistent application of the condo rule.

37

Social Host Liability

by Denish Lash, ACCI, FCCI

CCI News 5 34 41 42 45 47

President’s Message FCCI and DSA Nominations New Members Director’s Corner Upcoming Events Diversions & Distractions Summer 2007

thecondovoice

3

President’s Message

J

une, summer is finally here and CCI Toronto is winding up one year and starting another. Your membership renewal will be sent soon and I encourage you to renew. CCI is the voice of condominiums; we now represent approximately 25% of all condominium owners and residents in the GTA and are increasingly the organization to which legislators and regulators turn for our views on the effect of changes they contemplate as they relate to condominiums.

Legislation in a number of areas, in addition to the Condominium Act, affects condominium life and we are planning a greater presence with government and its agencies to ensure that the concerns of condominiums are heard at the earliest opportunity. CCI and ACMO are developing a program whereby condominium Directors, Owners and Managers would have a continuing presence with the Ontario Government through a firm that specializes in government relations. On specific legislative matters, John Oakes, President of Brookfield Residential Services Ltd., Maria Dimakas, a lawyer from Fine & Deo and Harold Cipin, President of Times Property Management Inc. made a presentation on sub-metering to the Ontario government on behalf of CCI and ACMO and while we may not have been able to effect change to the legislation or regulations, we believe there is a greater awareness in government of the problems this legislation will create both as to total cost of the implementation of smart metering technology and the complexity of its administration.

Bob Girard, a Director of CCI, continues to monitor water and waste developments in the City of Toronto and other Directors are exploring areas as diverse as new regulations in the security industry and the benefits and costs of going “Green” in condominiums.

Our Directors courses enjoyed record attendance this year, I am pleased to say, and I encourage all Directors and Owners to come out to next year’s sessions to hear the best of the industry’s professionals discuss the issues that confront all who live in condominiums.

In the meantime have a great summer, take a break and stop to smell the roses so that when fall arrives you come back with renewed vigour and optimism. All the best to you and yours this summer.

John Warren President, CCI Toronto & Area Chapter

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

5

Heeding Professional Advice in Good Faith

BY MICHAEL H. CLIFTON, MCCARTER GRESPAN BEYNON THOMPSON LLP (Reprinted from the CCI Golden Horseshoe Chapter “Condo News” – August 2006 issue)

I

n December, 1907, the Honourable Mr. Justice riddell published a paper in The Canadian Law Times in which he commented, It has been the fate of lawyers, ever since there were lawyers, to be the butt of cheap witticisms.

How true this is.

On my first day of law school, our dean addressd the class commencing with the question, “What is the difference between God and a lawyer?” The answer: “God doesn’t think he’s a lawyer.”

The purpose and message of this cheap (but funny) witticism was clearly dualistic: it reflected humourously a common public perception of lawyers as selfassuming and arrogant; it also was intended to direct our thoughts sardonically to the fact that, for some lawyers, that perception is unfortunately accurate.

The same, even more unfortunately, is true of many other professions. However, I am grateful to say that in my years as a lawyer I 6

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

have learned it is not true of many professionals.

That is, while professions as a whole suffer to be the butts of cheap jabs, the people who populate those professions, in my experience, barely ever deserve it.

Thus, the Hon. Mr. Justice Riddell concludes his comment quoted above with the following: “…but no one has ever yet got into trouble, financial or otherwise, in which he must trust someone, and trust him implicitly, that he has not sought the lawyer.”

Such trust is not without foundation.

The Hon. Mdm. Justice Abella of the Supreme Court of Canada, while she was a judge in the Ontario Court of Appeal, once stated, “There are three basic values which merge in a good lawyer; a commitment to competence, which is about skills, a commitment to ethics, which is about decency; and a commitment to professionalism, which transfuses the public interest into the other two values.”

Such commitments to skills, decency and the public interest are the basis upon which trust can and should be, and generally is, given to members of the legal profession.

And, again, what is said here of good lawyers can and must also, with equal confidence, be said of all other good professionals.

It is for this reason, I believe, that the Condominium Act, 1998, (the “Act”) accords a special place to professional advice in general.

Sub-section 37(3) of the Act provides as follows: A director shall not be found liable for a breach of a duty mentioned in subsection (1) [these being: the duties to act honestly and in good faith and to exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person

would exercise in comparable circumstances] if the breach arises as a result of the director’s relying in good faith upon, (a) financial statements of the corporation that the auditor in a written report, an officer of the corporation or a manager under an agreement for the management of the property represents to the director as presenting fairly the financial position of the corporation in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; or (b) a report or opinion of a lawyer, public accountant, engineer, appraiser or other person whose profession lends credibility to the report or opinion.

Not only do the directors thereby acquire the benefit for the condominium of receiving advice that should be grounded in specialized education and experience, but they also receive the personal benefit of protection from liability if it turns out that such advice was not as accurate, appropriate or reliable as it ought to be.

Accordingly, it is only to the advantage of boards of directors of condominiums to obtain and follow advice from a variety of professionals, including auditors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, appraisers and others, depending on the issues at hand.

Not only do the directors thereby acquire the benefit for the condominium of receiving advice that should be grounded in specialized education and

experience, but they also receive the personal benefit of protection from liability if it turns out that such advice was not as accurate, appropriate or reliable as it ought to be.

However, it must be observed that such protection is not absolute.

In one sense, this seems to be only a trite observation. It is well established that directors of corporations are only entitled to protection from liability in so far as they satisfy their statutory and fiduciary duties.

For example, in Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 620 v.

Bacres Wholesale Hardware Ltd. and Adriano Giudici, (2004) CanLI 2571, Mr. Justice Cameron of the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice commented: A corporate director, officer or servant, acting as the directing mind of the corporation, is ordinarily personally liable for his or her tortious conduct, even if the conduct was directed in a bona fide manner to the best interests of the corporation, …[particularly] where the objectionable conduct was fraudulent, deceitful, unauthorized or in furtherance of an interest separate from that of the corporation… [and/or] the use of the corporate structure is a sham or there is a principled basis for denying the protection of the corporate veil.

However, sub-section 37(3) of the Act appears to cover condominium directors with an additional layer of protection, provided they have received and relied upon professional advice. But there is also an additional requirement: the board members must rely on such advice “in good faith”.

Simple reliance on professional advice involves little more than actually doing what the professionals have advised. If this is simple reliance, then reliance “in good faith,” to have meaning, should impose additional requirements in order to relieve directors of liability. For one thing, it should involve doing all of what the professionals advise. Halfmeasures are rarely appropriate.

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

7

CONDO DIRECTORS WHILE YOU MANAGE — LET US DO THE ACCOUNTING AND ADMINISTRATION • • • •

Common fee collection Accounts payable – computer-generated cheques Budgets and budget compliance Monthly reporting with full financial statements and annual financial statements ready for audit

CARL C. FRANZEN INTERNATIONAL Consultants and Property Managers Tel: (416) 366-4975 ext. 24 Fax: (416) 366-6473 Email: mailbox@ccfranzen.com

For example, implementing only some of the procedures recommended by auditors, accountants or lawyers with respect to handling the financial and other records of the corporation limits the extent to which the Board can claim protection for having relied on such professionals’ advice when the security, confidentiality or accuracy of such records fails or is compromised.

But more than this, relying on professional advice in good faith should mean that the directors interact with such professionals and accept their advice with the same degree of honesty care diligence and skill that is required of them in all other circumstances.

Thus, while condominium directors can rely on their professionals to fill in gaps of knowledge, skill and experience the directors themselves do not possess, professional advice does not absolve the directors from satisfying the statutory standard of care up to the point that such gaps exist.

In this sense, good faith reliance on professional advice should also mean that the Board has with care sought to ask its questions to the right person having first given him or her the right information. Asking the right person involves having reasonable grounds to believe that the professional in question is competent to address the issue about which the advice is sought.

For example, it is doubtful that a lawyer specializing in family or criminal law, or even one whose practice includes consumer real estate purchasers and sales, is going to be very familiar with the provisions of the Act and able to instruct the Board competently with respect to such matters as the enforceability of rules and by-laws, the application of reserve funds or the interpretation of the declaration.

Likewise, the Board would be unwise to ask any lawyer about matters pertaining to such things as the interpretation of surveys (ask a surveyor), the reliability of structures (ask an engineer) or the accuracy of budgets (ask

8

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

an accountant) or records (ask an auditor) It is important to know what kind of professional is required to answer the question at hand.

Giving the right information includes not only understanding the nature of the issue at hand, having knowledge of the facts that are relevant to it (which should both be a natural result of a director exercising him or herself with care, diligence and skill that a reasonable prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances) and sharing those facts with the professional, but also not knowingly or carelessly saying or doing anything to mislead the professional as to the facts or nature of the issue in question.

Doing anything to manipulate a professional’s advice so that you only get the answers you want is wrong. In addition, knowingly or carelessly, for example, giving a lawyer only half the facts, giving a surveyor only out of date documents, or misleading the engineer per-

forming a reserve fund study as to what is or is not a common element or asset of the corporation, will undermine the correctness of the advice or report given and likely negate any assertion by a condominium director that he or she relied on it in good faith.

al’s advice in good faith, even if such lack of information was accidental or the professional was purportedly competent. The fact that the director is aware of the problem negates the possibility of relying in good faith on the advice.

In my view, a responsible director acting in good faith will provide complete and honest information to the professional and only then can expect to receive advice, opinions or instructions that are comprehensive and correct.

The Act appears to provide that where a director fails to exercise good faith in obtaining and relying on professional advice, that director will likely be no better protected from liability than if there was no advice obtained at all. In fact, in some cases it might even make the director’s situation worse.

Finally, good faith reliance should also mean not having any good reasons to doubt the professional’s advice when relying upon it.

If a director is aware that the professional in question lacks knowledge of certain facts that are relevant to the opinion or report given, or observes clear errors or discrepancies in the professional’s statements, that director cannot be said to rely on such profession-

Therefore, while professionals, by and large, should be expected to strive to meet the standards of competence, decency and professionalism set for them, it is incumbent upon the directors of a condominium corporation not only to do as their professionals advise, but to hire, inform and rely upon them only in a manner that is consistent with their statutory standard of care. ■

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

9

Ecology and Economy Can These Go Hand in Hand in a Condominium Retrofit? …Yes they can, and leave a lasting positive legacy.

BY TIM STOATE, MANDATE RELATED FINANCE, THE TORONTO ATMOSPHERIC FUND (“TAF”)

In most cities 25% of the Green House Gas (“GHG”) emissions are produced by residences.

Condominiums are rapidly becoming the residence of choice.

In Toronto, they represent 90% of all new residential construction.

10

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

Developers are convinced that building energy efficient and sustainable properties will improve the value of the building. Using readily available and tried and tested materials and mechanicals, some developers are achieving between 30% and 50% reductions in energy and utility costs as compared to code. The result: Higher demand and faster sales for a “green building”.

The Landscape is Changing!

The implications for existing condominiums facing the “green revolution” are significant. Will a condominium hold its value against today’s newer and greener buildings and older retrofitted buildings when utility costs play a key role in determining the value? Many appraisers have concluded: The sales price of each unit will be higher than for less efficient buildings when other factors are otherwise similar.

If vendors of condominiums want to compete in the market for the resale dollar, what questions will they need to ask and what will they need to do? This article tries to provide some answers to the following questions: • What can be accomplished?

• What will it cost?

• Where can a Board obtain financing for a project?

• The three year old Condominium: What is possible?

• What are the steps?

• What resources are available?

• Can TAF help?

What Can be Accomplished?

Evidence is critical in any decision when spending the dollars trusted to the Board. Courtesy of the Energy Efficiency Office of the City of Toronto

The Three Year old Condominium: What is Possible?

One of the most startling things is that many condominiums that have just been built can also benefit if retrofit.

The reasons for this surprising situation are essentially code and market.

Building codes use standards that can be achieved by a broad spectrum of developers. The market is driven by price, and the capital cost of energy efficiency has only recently been added to the price of the unit.

What Financing Alternatives are Available? the above independent modeled and projected information. In this case, the actual results were equal to or were better than the projected results. Although it is a larger project, the example above has been used as it demonstrates a large number of different energy reducing measures.

Total percentage of costs saved 30%, and the retrofit was accomplished with very little disruption to the individual suites. Deeper savings might have happened with some additional work such as low-e windows solar panels, high efficiency appliances or geothermal in ground heat transfer system. Every building is different, and modeling potential results is a key step.

What else can we see from this chart?

First, usually a combination or “bundle” of measures achieves deep results.

Second, we can readily determine that the leading areas in terms of fast payback – (how fast does my money come back through saving in terms of years) usually comes through a retrofit of heating and boilers.

Third, buildings need to be kept tuned and in fighting trim. Training is a very important piece of keeping the fighting edge - that means that those who are responsible to operate and manage the building’s energy costs need specific training.

Fourth, what is also good news is that we reduce environmentally harmful byproducts of energy use. In this case, over 1 million KG in GHG (CO2) will be reduced each year. That creates a significant, direct and positive impact on the environment.

What Will it Cost?

More importantly the question is: What is the cost if a retrofit is not done? In the case above the condo invested $647,000. The investment was back in place in their control in less than four years, and the owners gained a further savings of $165,000 per annum (or a 30% return on investment) until the items need to be replaced. In other words the cost for energy is $165,000 greater than it need be once the investment paid back. In the case of many measures that cost will continue ten to fifteen years after payback, or well over $1,000,000 more than needed to be paid.

Therefore, a retrofit can provide protection against escalating maintenance costs. With energy and utility costs forming up to 40% of monthly condo fees, retrofits can actually reduce those costs over time or level out or reduce the impact of constantly rising utility bills. As can be seen from the previous paragraph, the savings from the retrofits pay for the retrofits and those savings can continue past the payback period.

Where can a condo corporation obtain financing for a retrofit? Many Boards are understandably reluctant to borrow or use reserves. Understandably, they would like to know; will borrowing for an energy retrofit increase maintenance costs? Usually the answer is that the savings will be greater than the associated maintenance fees for utilities.

There are several financial institutions which understand the condominium retrofit market. They each have their own lending profile and requirements.

Energy Management Firms will also assist with financing.

What are the Steps?

Just like any renovation project - planning and agreement are required. There are never any magic pills - the process takes time, but as we have seen the results are rewarding. Some steps are noted here: 1) Find an internal champion or group that will lead the project.

2) Establish a relationship with an independent energy specialist or independent Energy Management Firm that can provide an energy audit of the building. The audit or model is a critical step in determining the appropriate measures to use and projected savings.

3) Review the model and ask questions.

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

11

CONDOMINIUM SECTION Maclaren, Corlett LLP is a full service law firm with offices in Toronto and Ottawa; both having significant condominium sections. The condominium section of the firm’s Toronto office is headed up by Armand Conant, and represents many condominium corporations in Toronto and the GTA. We work closely with our clients to find practical, cost effective solutions to problems.

For more information please contact: Armand G.R. Conant 186 St. George Street, Main Floor Toronto, Ontario M5R 2N3 Tel: (416) 361-3094 Fax: (416) 361-6261 Email: aconant@macorlaw.com www.maclarencorlett.com

12

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

4) These firms will provide the Board with expertise, resources and comfort. They specialize in reducing energy and utility costs and many guarantee the estimates. In addition, they will be aware of the incentive programs available in your jurisdiction. Establish a competition for the business and work with the energy firm to choose the best organization to complete the retrofit.

5) Obtain the appropriate financing if required.

6) Involve the owners through education and have the energy services firm and financing source attend an information session.

7) Start the project.

8) Ensure the operators are trained.

9) Enjoy the results.

• NRCAN: http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/ site includes articles and incentives available with links to Provincial sites and information on energy services companies.

• Canada Green Building Council: http://www.cagbc.org/ - information on LEED accreditation (“Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design”) • Enbridge: https://portal-plumprod. cgc.enbridge.com/portal/server.pt Go to: Business - Case Studies Manulife Centre • Toronto Water: http://www.toronto .ca/ water/index.htm • Toronto Energy Efficiency Office: http://www.toronto.ca/bbp/index.htm (Better Building Partnership) - Lists qualified Energy Management Firms companies - provides a loan application and sample contracts with firms

Resources Recap Government incentive programs are arising and changing all the time. Some of these sites assist in determining the present and potential levels of incentives. In addition these sites list valuable tips, lists of energy management firms and copies of standard contract with those firms.

• Retrofits save money and the environment (a 30% reduction in electricity roughly translates into a 30% reduction in GHG). Newly built condominiums can be retrofitted to take advantage of energy savings.

• Training is critical to success.

• Government incentive programs are available to reduce costs.

• Financing is available and Energy Management Firms will guarantee savings.

More…

The most important points to make: i) It makes good economic sense to invest in items that maintain and improve the value of the property rather than in nonrenewable energy and utilities, and ii) retrofits can be a perfect partnership between ecology and economy and leave a lasting positive legacy!

Tim Stoate is Associate Director of Mandate Related Finance, The Toronto Atmospheric Fund (“TAF”).

Established in 1991, TAF has been an effective leader in reducing green house gases. TAF’s model is now being duplicated in major cities. www.tafund.org -tstoate@tafund.org 416-393-6368 Questions and comments are welcomed. ■

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

13

Dealing with Marijuana Grow Operations

BY DAVID E. THIEL, FOGLER RUBINOFF LLP

O

ver the past several years, we have seen a large increase in the number of marijuana grow operations discovered by condominium corporations. Apart from the obvious safety issues presented by interfering with a criminal operation, condominium corporations and owners are also concerned about the proper repair of condominium units where grow operations and owners have been discovered. In addition, corporations can incur significant additional electricity expense due to the heavy electricity demand of a marijuana grow operation.

In most cases, the grow-ops are operated by tenants and not the unit owner. However, the unit owner will ultimately be held responsible to the condominium corporation for the costs to repair the unit and common elements, if damaged.

Condominiums are especially attractive locations for marijuana grow operations because relatively few condominiums are submetered for electricity. Perhaps more importantly, a bulk meter provides a degree of protection to the operator since it will be difficult, if not impossible, to detect usage patterns distinctive to grow operations when there is a single electricity invoice for the entire condominium.

We expect the marijuana grow operation problem to be substantially reduced in the future due to the Ontario Government’s initiative to require all condominium units in Ontario to be submetered for electricity consumption by December 31, 2010. Once submetering is installed on a widespread basis, establishing grow operations 14

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

in condominiums will be much less attractive for the reasons discussed above. However, it should be kept in mind that an open issue will be whether or not a condominium corporation will have access to electricity usage information due to any applicable privacy legislation.

sons to grow marijuana for medicinal purposes and in these situations the Corporation must consider whether or not the Ontario Human Rights Code may apply.

Until submetering is implemented (and perhaps afterward as discussed above), the following suggestions are offered to condominium corporations when confronted by the discovery of a marijuana grow operation. These steps should be considered both to protect the building and health of the residents, as well as to attempt to maximize recovery of costs and expenses.

a.

The first step will be to call the police and wait for the police to complete their investigations.

Entering a grow operation can be dangerous for many reasons.

b.

The unit owner(s) should be notified, if applicable, and the unit secured. Obtaining the owner’s cooperation throughout, or at least keeping him/her informed of the process, will expedite the resolution of the problem and reduce the opportunity for the owner to object in the future to the steps taken by the Corporation.

This is only a general outline and a condominium corporation should consult with legal counsel concerning the appropriate response based upon the specific facts of the situation. For instance, it is important to note that Health Canada may license certain per-

Corporation with a view to stopping any causes of ongoing damage or any potentially dangerous situation. d.

The owner should be requested to provide the Corporation with a report of a qualified engineer or engineers as to any necessary repair/remedial work. This report should be addressed to the Corporation and should include an environmental assessment for mould and an assessment of the electrical system in the unit. In certain cases a structural report might also be required where the weight of equipment, plants and soil was substantial.

e.

If the report is not provided by the owner within a reasonable period of time, the Corporation should retain its own engineer(s) to provide the reports discussed above.

f.

This inspection and the resulting recommendations may need to be

Initial Response and Arranging for Inspections and Repairs

c.

Emergency repairs should be performed immediately by the

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

15

coordinated with the relevant municipal authorities as there may be work orders issued as a result of the grow operation. g.

The owner should then be provided with written notice pursuant to Section 92 of the Condominium Act, 1998 to perform the necessary repair/remedial work to the unit.

h.

The Corporation should perform the necessary work if not performed by the unit owner within a reasonable period of time in the circumstances.

i.

16

As a final consideration, the Corporation will want to consider whether or not the existence of a former marijuana grow operation must or should be referenced in the Status Certificate for the unit.

Condominium corporations should consult with legal counsel in this regard since the course of action may depend on the circumstances

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

of each case; for instance, whether or not the owner performed the repairs, the length of time since discovery, whether disclosure is made in other ways such as through the public listing of the local police department, degree of alterations and duration of the grow operation.

b.

A written demand should be made of the unit owner for indemnification to the extent that any of these expenses are not covered through the Corporation’s insurance. This written demand would include engineering costs, repair costs, legal costs, the cost of excessive use of electricity and possibly additional property management expenses if applicable.

c.

If payment is not received in response to the demand, the Corporation should send a Notice of Lien (Form 14) to the owner.

The Corporation’s solicitor should be consulted concerning whether or not all portions of the Corporation’s claim are properly subject to the Corporation’s lien under the Condominium Act, 1998. If necessary, a Certificate of Lien should be registered prior to the deadline provided in the Condominium Act 1998. ■

Specific Cost Recovery Steps a.

The Corporation should place its insurer on notice of the situation.

Depending upon several factors including whether or not the type of damage is excluded from coverage and the expected cost of repair compared to the applicable insurance deductible, the Corporation will make a decision as to whether or not making a formal insurance claim is appropriate. In our experience, many policies specifically exclude mould damage.

A Bad Case of Mould: Goodwin v. DCC No. 54

T

BY LOU NATALE FOGLER RUBINOFF LLP

Try and solve this riddle?

How long does it take for 9 directors, one management company and a bunch of contractors to resolve a serious mould problem in one townhouse unit?

If your answer was: “way too long”, then you solved the riddle.

his article will review the implications of a reported decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice made on November 12, 2004 and the subsequent resolution of a case on behalf of the owners of a unit situated in Durham Condominium Corporation No. 54 (Goodwin v. Durham Condo Corp. No. 54). The Goodwin Decision is an illustration of the potential liabilities facing condominium corporations and Board members who fail to comply with their legal obligations to repair and maintain the common elements.

After months of failing to correct a serious mould problem, the Honourable Justice Scott of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, found that DCC 54 was “in contempt” of a previous Court Order which required DCC 54 to rectify all mould problems in a townhouse unit and to produce an independent expert’s report confirming that the mould was removed. In his 2004 unreported decision, Justice Scott also ordered each Board member to personally pay the owners’ costs in the amount of $1,500.

Although Justice Scott’s contempt order was ultimately set aside by another Judge for technical reasons, the case highlights the potential consequences on directors who fail to comply with their legal obligations. In order to fully

appreciate and understand the basis for the Court making a contempt order against DCC 54 (albeit, subsequently set aside), it is important to review some of the background facts and legal steps which the unit owners were required to take.

In January, 2002, the unit owners experienced a fairly minor water leakage into the basement of the townhouse unit as a result of a defective vent pipe.

During the course of repairing the basement area, the owners became aware of a much more serious problem in the common element attic and roof area which resulted in high humidity levels throughout the unit and the growth of toxic moulds. Despite repeated requests by the owners, DCC 54 refused to provide to the owners copies of reports which were prepared by the contractors and engineers who inspected the unit and investigated the mould problem.

For six months, the owners were given excuses and the “run around” by the Corporation and its representatives.

Finally, out of complete desperation and frustration, the owners contacted the writer and explained their situation.

The owners immediately initiated mediation and retained their own independent engineer who confirmed that there was a serious mould problem in the unit. As a result of the Corporation’s

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

17

failure to adequately deal with the problem, the parties held a mediation in May, 2003, (almost 16 months after the owners first reported the mould problem to the Corporation).

The Corporation agreed at the mediation to “forthwith” repair and rectify all of the common element deficiencies and, within a reasonable time thereafter, to provide the owners with an expert

report confirming that the mould problem was adequately resolved. The Corporation also agreed to pay for some of the owners’ legal costs and outof-pocket expenses.

The case should have ended at that point. However, as a result of the Corporation doing very little over ten months to address the mould problem,

our office initiated a Court Application against DCC 54, seeking an Order that the Corporation had failed to fulfill the terms of the Mediation Settlement and that it had breached its obligations to maintain and repair the common elements pursuant to sections 89 and 90 of the Condominium Act. On August 23, 2004 (almost 2 1/2 years after the mould problem was first reported to the Corporation), the owners were successful in obtaining a Court Order requiring DCC 54 to forthwith and in no event later than September 23, 2004, fulfill its obligations under the Mediation Settlement and to provide the owners with a report from an independent expert confirming that the mould problem was resolved in a manner satisfactory to the owners. Justice Magda also ordered the parties to reattend Court on October 4, 2004, to determine the issue of damages and costs.

Notwithstanding Justice Magda’s Order, the Corporation failed to do any repairs to the unit or to provide copies of any reports to the owners by September 23, 2004, as ordered by the Court. No valid reason was provided

by DCC 54 as to why the Corporation did not comply with Justice Magda’s Order. When the parties re-attended at Court on October 4, 2004, to review and assess damages and cost, Justice Scott was very sympathetic to the owners’ dilemma. Even though the owners did not formally make a motion for contempt, Justice Scott not only found DCC 54 in contempt of Justice Magda’s Order, he also ordered the individual directors to personally pay $1,500 in costs to the unit owners.

As indicated above, Justice Scott’s contempt and cost order was later set aside

by Justice Ferguson for procedural reasons, specifically, that the directors had no notice of the Court hearing. Justice Ferguson stated that “while I am sympathetic to the Goodwins’ position, the procedure to be followed on a contempt motion was not met”. The Judge, however, did state that DCC 54 was not in compliance with the original Court

18

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

Order made by Justice Magda and that “it may in fact be appropriate to have the costs paid personally by the officers and directors”.

The Judge went on to state that “I do note that the quantum of the costs award was reasonable and appropriate, however, the officers and directors ought to have been served and the procedure followed to obtain a formal contempt order.

What is also important about the Goodwin Decision is that the Judge rejected DCC 54’s position that the owners were not entitled to initiate the Court Application and obtain the original Court Order because the parties had already commenced the mediation and arbitration process. Justice Ferguson’s decision makes it clear that even though the mediation and arbitration process was initiated, a party may be entitled to commence a Court Application under section 134 of the Act where there is an alleged breach of the Act or if a party fails to comply with a mediated settlement agreement.

Sadly, this saga did not end until many months after the owners obtained the original Court Order. The owners initiated another claim in 2006 against DCC 54 and nine individual directors seeking damages in excess of $450,000.

The Corporation’s insurers refused to cover the directors against the owners’ claim which alleged bad faith. The parties ultimately settled with the Corporation paying a substantial sum to the owners.

There are many lessons to be learned by this case. One thing is for sure: if DCC 54, its directors and representatives had properly fulfilled their obligations, the Goodwins would not have had to live in a toxic environment and many thousands of dollars would have been saved. ■

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

19

20

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

Caught in the Act? An Important Update on the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005 BY: DAVID CRUDELE, B.A., LL.B., STUDENT-AT-LAW, FINE & DEO

A

s reported by Robert Gardiner in, “Legislative Update” (The Condo Voice, Vol. 10, No. 4, Summer 2006, page 9), the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005 (“PSISA”) will affect condo corporations, once it comes into effect.

Recently, a proclamation was issued naming August 23, 2007 as the day on which PSISA comes into force. Condo corporations employing security guards, concierges, superintendents or other security-like personnel should become familiar with PSISA to avoid costly fines.

All security guards must be licensed under PSISA, but guards who held licenses under the old Act (Private Investigators and Security Guards Act, or “PISGA”) will be deemed to be licensed under PSISA until such time as their PISGA license would have expired. Also under PSISA, every person who is acting as a security guard or holding himself or herself out as one shall carry his or her license, on request identify himself or herself as a security guard, and produce his or her license, if so requested.

Additionally, all concierges, superin-

tendents or any other employee of the condominium corporation whose primary function is sufficiently analogous to the role of a security guard (i.e. those individuals whose primary function is to guard against unauthorized entry by guarding or patrolling to protect persons or property) also require licensing.

Applicability of PSISA is not ubiquitous; condo corporations must assess each employee’s job description and function to determine whether licensing is necessary.

Condominium corporations employing persons requiring a license are also required to register as an “employer” with the Registrar of the Private Investigators and Service Guards Branch, provide the Registrar with a mailing address for service in Ontario and notify the Registrar of any change in its mailing address within five days of the change.

Any condo corporation “selling” the services of an employee such as a concierge or superintendent who functions in the capacity of a security guard must first be granted a license to do so, while ensuring that any such employee is also PSISA licensed.

The fine for condo corporations failing to comply with PSISA may be up to $250,000.00.

The following suggestions may help condominium corporations transition into PSISA. Not all suggestions will apply to all condominiums; legal consultation is advised.

• Review current employment contracts, as well as actual functions of certain employees, to ascertain whether that employee may require licensing; • Change job descriptions of employees who may be functioning in a security guard-like manner; • Instruct certain employees (such as concierges and/or superintendents) to avoid security guard-like job functions and activities as their primary function; • Outsource certain jobs so as to avoid having to register as an “employer;” • Refrain from “selling” the services of guards to avoid licensing procedures.

For more information on PSISA, how it affects your condominium and other suggestions on how to avoid being caught by the Act, contact the condo corporation’s solicitor. ■ Summer 2007

thecondovoice

21

Understanding the Relationship Between Board and Management

BY ALAN ROSENBERG, AR CONSULTING

(A) Introduction “The Two Extremes” The Management Extreme: “Leave us alone and let us manage.”

The Board Members’ Extreme: Micromanagement (doing management’s job, or trying to).

Management’s Rationale: “We’re the experts. We have the history, the experience, the appropriate insurance/bonding coverage, the time, the personnel, the resources, and the track record.”

The Board’s Rationale: “We’ve been burned before. First you (management) earn your stripes, then we’ll see about cutting you some slack.” (But the micro-management continues, even if “the stripes have been earned.”)

It’s obvious that each of these extreme positions is unacceptable. How could it not be, when you consider that the only appropriate working model is: • the management company gives the Board advice 22

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

• the Board makes decisions based on that advice, and other appropriate criteria • the management company carries out the decisions made by the Board • the Board, as the executive body responsible to the condominium corporation, monitors the management company’s execution of the Board’s decision.

In this context, it’s of little consequence whether the management company is boutique-sized or a mega-boomer.

Similarly, it doesn’t matter if the condo Board is comprised of hard-driving type-A personalities or introverts. What counts here is whether or not there’s a relationship that works for the benefit of condominium property being administered by that Board. The question that seems to elude so many condominium corporations is: “How do we get, and keep, that relationship”?

I’d strongly suggest there are value systems involved, one for each party to this relationship. These values may seem like pie in the sky to those of you out

there who are either frustrated Board members or burned-out managers. But there are ways to (a) define the relationship (b) sustain the relationship (c) improve the relationship. This requires each party (the Board and management) to set standards, and to adhere to them.

I choose to regard these standards as responsibilities, and I define them below.

(B) Management’s Responsibilities (The “Three R’s”) Management’s key person (people) has (have) to be: • Reachable • Reasonable • Responsive Before I elaborate on this, let’s do a brief review of today’s situation in the GTA. By “situation” I mean “supply of capable property managers compared to the condominium properties needing capable management.”

Supply of New Property Managers There are at this writing hundreds of

new GTA condo properties having recently come on stream, or now coming on stream, in various stages of readiness. That means hundreds of new condo Boards, representing tens of thousands of new homeowners.

Managers are needed for these properties, as well as the thousands of condominium properties already in existence, some of which are aging rapidly (in terms of their physical structure).

There are many capable, experienced managers. But more are needed. There are many exemplary educational courses across Canada (I’d attest without hesitation to the quality of the ACMO course). But what happens after the course is completed? What’s it like for a new manager, sitting at a Board meeting, facing pressure from (and needing answers for) condo directors who are themselves accountable to their neighbours? Do these new managers immediately succeed?

Communication • Management ➞ Board: Keep the client informed.

• Management ➞ Community: Rules enforcement, etc. (learn how to be “gentle but firm”).

• Board ➞ Community: Management has to assist the Board (content for newsletters, etc.)

If they’re reachable and reasonable, do they respond constructively? Are the grievances addressed tangibly? Is the property manager given better support?

Are the financial statements fixed?

Does the to-do list get reduced? Is the property kept at a higher state of cleanliness/repair? Is the property manager replaced promptly, if that’s what’s necessary?

Accountability, Credibility (“The Three R’s”) As I said before, management’s key people have to be Reachable, Reasonable and Responsive.

It doesn’t matter that the management company is small enough to support

Resources, Expertise: Does management: • have legitimate support for “field” staff (managers, assistant managers, admin. assistants)?

• share with the Board any experience gained from managing other, similar properties?

claims that they’re “hands-on” and that your condo corporation “won’t get lost in the shuffle,” if you can’t reach the chief-cook-and-bottle-washer when things break down, as they frequently do.

• have a storehouse of general information that can assist every client, no matter the size, location or demographic, and is information thus shared with the clients regularly (cost-savings, safety issues, etc.)

Conversely, it doesn’t matter that the management company is big enough to have a wealth of resources and staff beyond count, if the Board can’t reach the decision maker(s) on those inevitable occasions where this is imperative. No CEO/President is too big to talk to a client, I don’t care who they are.

Agility, Adaptation: What’s your management’s level of preparedness in: • Reserve Fund analysis • new technologies (windows, floor coverings) • new developments – energy retrofits, demographic shifts • cost controls, made even more critical by aging buildings and aging people. This involves far more than bulk-buying, or supplier “rebates” (don’t get me started on that one): analyzing the budget line-by-line; scrutinizing contracted maintenance

Training of New Property Managers 1. Start them as assistant property managers, where there’s an experienced property nearby and/or accessible, for tutoring, support, and advice.

This is already done to a considerable extent in the management field.

2. Start them in the capacity of “shadowing,” or directly assisting, an experienced property manager.

They’re less “on their own” than in method 1, and this is the more expensive way to go, and, as such, is not done nearly as often. I think we can agree, however, that it’s worth exploring, and a cost-effective way of doing it must be found.

3. All this pre-supposes that the management company, whether small, medium, or large, has a meaningful, ongoing training and info-sharing program. (More of that below.)

Now that the management company has acquired, trained and nurtured a multitude of prime, grade-A property managers, what are management’s responsibilities to the Board/ Management relationship?

Once reached, are these people reasonable? Do they resent you for daring to question them, much less challenge their company’s level of service?

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

23

(elevators, etc.); avoiding “repeat repairs” of equipment; examining utilities consumption, and on and on.

Accounting, Finance I’ll just say this: does your management company know what “accrual accounting” is?

Site Operations: Management needs to demonstrate that they can master areas/issues such as: • Pro-activity (anticipate, don’t just react) • Appropriate preventive maintenance routine • Knowing the correct way to deal with superintendents, cleaners, trades • Assistance, guidance on major capital repairs • Emergency response

(C) Condominium Board Members’ Responsibilities (The “Three C’s”) Condominium management is not the easiest of pursuits in which to be involved. One of the hurdles is dealing with Board members who are not (forgive the candor) doing themselves, their fellow Board members, their communities, or management any favours, with their antics.

I’ve been most fortunate to have encountered many condo directors over the years who’ve earned my respect and admiration because of their selfless and untiring efforts on behalf of their communities. They’re an inspiration to their communities, and in return they’re frequently misunderstood, often underappreciated, and usually unpaid.

Sadly, there are others: those directors who can only be described as disruptive, uncooperative, too hands-on, too hands-off, too suspicious, too hostile…the list goes on and on. But instead of dwelling on the negativity, let’s approach this positively. Here are The Three C’s: • Care • Concern • Co-operation

24

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

Specific expertise is always nice (accountants, lawyers, management industry types, engineers, etc.) but these professionals are not always available to the community. Even if they are, there’s no substitute for the Three C’s.

Care: So basic it seems unnecessary to even mention it: a Board member has to care about the community in which he or she serves.

I have a scoop for you: it’s not so basic.

I’ve come across condo directors who care about everything except the community: the ones who try to win the most arguments, do the most micromanaging, seldom or never show up at meetings, bad-mouth their fellow Board members, interfere so constantly that management can’t do the job it’s paid to do, cause tension or even upheaval, take private Board business public, waste time at meetings…whew!

Caring, on the other hand, means: understanding and responding to the

requirements of the owners/residents; taking note of the community’s physical appearance and encouraging the other residents to do likewise; spending the corporation’s funds wisely; partnering with management, not squabbling with them. There are many other valid examples, but you get the point.

Concern: Sounds like “care,” doesn’t it? What I mean is, concern defined as due diligence. There are always going to be issues about which the Board has to be concerned: the cost of utilities; spotty landscaping; reserve fund adequacy; maintenance problems; adherence to budget; non-compliance by unit owners and tenants; others you can name by the dozens, but, most notably, management issues. On that last point, my clients will recognize the seven important facets of the condominium management routine: communication, cost-savings, operations, accountability, safety, financial and admin., and resources/expertise. (I nag them ad nauseam about this.)

The most valid application of due diligence is for the Board members to be constantly assessing management according to these seven facets. They’ll vary in importance from one condominium community to another, but each facet will be of at least some relevance, and that’s how you best assess your management service.

Also, how many of your fellow Board members have taken a Director’s course, such as those offered by the CCI, or attended a Condo Conference, like the Annual CCI/ACMO Conference? That’s what I mean by “showing some concern.” The best Board member is an educated one.

Co-operation: Again, something that seems so basic and self-explanatory.

And yet, I could tell you stories…you could tell me stories…

The fact is, a Board whose members don’t co-operate with one another may

as well resign en masse. The inability or unwillingness to overcome differences and work together creates inertia, or worse yet, hostility. Or a lameduck status that is unavoidably detrimental to the condominium community.

This does not mean to imply that you’ll always agree with your fellow directors. That would be a first. But as I noted above, it’s vital to overcome these differences for the greater good.

And that doesn’t mean through clenched teeth. It means establishing a working relationship that accounts for, deals with, reconciles, and overcomes conflicts as a matter of routine.

I know from personal experience that some Board members can seem impossible to work with. In that case, it is mandatory that the other directors recognize the problem and actively confront it. Inaction, on the vague hope that the issues will “work themselves

out,” almost never works. In fact, it can aggravate the situation because silence is frequently interpreted by the renegade director as approval.

I’ve worked with many Boards over the years. The most effective of them, by far, are those who embrace the Three C’s.

• • • All this may seem pretty daunting. But you have my assurance that establishing and maintaining these standards will contribute positively to the relationship between the Board and management, for the good of the condominium community at large.

Alan Rosenberg may be contacted via e-mail at: ar@condominiumconsulting.ca / Website: www.condominiumconsulting.ca ■

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

25

STANDARD UNIT BY-LAW How Does This By-Law Work?

BY MARCO GRAZIANI AND MARIO DEO FINE & DEO

S

imply stated, a standard unit by-law sets out a list of standard features that comprise each class of unit being described in the by-law for the purpose of insurance responsibility apportionment, among other things. If an item is not listed among the standard features: 1. the corporation will not insure it; 2. the corporation will not be responsible for its repair after damage; and, 3. it is deemed to be an improvement under the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”).

To provide an example, if flooring is excluded from the list of standard unit features described in the standard unit by-law, the flooring within a unit would constitute an improvement.

The inclusion or exclusion of unit features in the standard unit by-law list, however, does not otherwise alter or affect a unit owner’s maintenance obligations. These obligations cover any and all items that make up a unit and owners continue to be responsible for maintenance and repairs arising from wear and tear. The standard unit bylaw only affects unit owner and corporation repair obligations in the event of damage and not wear and tear.

26

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

The writers have observed that the first reaction of owners and board members alike to a standard unit by-law is an inclination to prepare an all-encompassing list of standard features, such that no item is left out. The rationale for this initial tendency is the fear that any items left off the list will not receive insurance coverage. This apprehension is totally because each unit owner’s policy covers improvements to the unit not covered by the corporation’s policy, thus ensuring that there is no gap in coverage.

As a result, a unit owner who does not change his or her unit policy after a standard unit by-law is put into effect will automatically have insurance coverage for all items that the standard unit by-law excludes (i.e. flooring). This is the case because unit owners’ policies cover unit improvements, subject to the upper monetary limit of the policy. As with all insurance policies, an owner and his or her broker must decide upon the upper limit or total value of the policy and this needs to be done annually, regardless of whether a standard unit by-law exists or not.

The best way to do this is for the owner to forward a copy of the standard unit by-law to the broker and then to discuss specific policy limit requirements with

him or her. A typical standard unit bylaw will not necessitate that a unit owner change his or her policy limit, as the average policy limit is set high enough to cover items left off the standard unit by-law list, but owners must check this themselves. If an increase of the policy limit is in fact required, this usually correlates to a very minor change in the policy premium.

There is often much effort and debate in determining what exactly should be included in the list of standard unit features for the purposes of a standard unit by-law. As the writers have already shown, due to existing coverage maintained by the typical unit owner’s insurance policy, the exact details and quality of items listed in the by-law do not merit extended debate or consideration.

The writers will explain below why it makes sense for the standard unit features listed in the standard unit by-law to represent an average or slightly belowaverage unit in that particular class.

Why is a “Standard Unit Definition” Necessary?

A standard unit definition is necessary because: (1) the Act, unlike the previous legislation, identifies improvements to units by reference to the “standard

unit” (i.e. anything that does not form part of the standard unit definition (excluding common elements) is an improvement). The standard unit can only be defined by either: (i) a by-law; or, (ii) by reference to the declarant’s standard unit schedule, if applicable (discussed below); and, (2) without it, a corporation and its owners cannot accurately determine what is, or is not, an improvement to a particular unit. Without the clarification provided by this by-law, disputes may arise between a corporation and unit owner after damage occurs in a unit. The corporation may take the position that certain features in a unit are an improvement, and therefore not the corporation’s responsibility, whereas the unit owner may take the opposite position. It is in both parties’ best interest to avoid any such scenario, which often results in delay, expense, frustration and carries the risk of the issue expanding into a broader conflict involving the parties’ respective insurers.

How May a Standard Unit be Defined?

There are two methods by which a “standard unit” may be defined in accordance with the provisions of the

Act. For the overwhelming majority of condominium corporations within the province, the standard unit may be defined by passing a by-law under subsection 56(1)(h) of the Act. The other method of defining the standard unit will only apply to those condominium corporations that are newly registered or are to be created in the future. Subsection 43(5)(h) of the Act requires the declarant to deliver, as an item to be turned over following the turnover meeting, a schedule setting out what constitutes a standard unit. For existing condominium corporations, the only way to define standard unit is to pass a by-law under subsection 56(1)(h).

How to Determine the Classes of Units If a board of directors is developing a standard unit by-law, the first consideration should be the number of classes its building may have. Typically there will be only one residential class that describes all units within a corporation.

However, there may be more than one class within a corporation. Some different classes of units to consider are parking units, locker units, commercial units and/or any units that the corporation owns (i.e. t.v. control room or loading dock area). Some, or all, of these types of units may require their own standard

unit definition. There may even be different types of residential units (i.e. luxury/penthouse suites) that will require a separate standard unit definition due to their distinctiveness/uniqueness. When considering whether to make such units a separate class of standard unit, the Board must apply common sense and the advice of its lawyer and insurance broker.

Considerations when Defining the Standard Features Once the classes have been determined, the next step would be to define the standard features for each class. The Act does not set any guidelines or restrictions in respect of what should be included within the standard features. That decision has been left to the board of directors and the owners. The board of directors may be as broad or as restrictive as it desires. For example, the standard unit may only include the shell of the unit (i.e. drywall or plastered walls) and nothing more. This would be a very restrictive standard and would shift a heavy burden on the owners, who, in the event of damage, would be responsible for everything but the shell of their unit. The other extreme would be to include almost everything as a feature in the standard unit definition. A significant factor will be determining what is most cost effective with respect to insurance, not only for the

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

27

28

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

corporation but for the unit owners as well.

It is recommended that the corporation’s insurance broker be contacted when determining what is to be included within the standard unit definition.

The insurance broker’s comments may assist the Board in finding an appropriate balance between these extremes.

Typically, it is best to define a basic builder’s unit, as it would be built at the time of drafting the by-law. The goal, in the writer’s view, is to have a standard unit which is very basic so that the corporation is not paying to insure a quality of unit that is higher than the average. In fact, the writers usually advise Boards to create a standard unit that is just average or slightly below average. This means that the corporation will not have to pay to insure units for a quality that does not exist in the majority of units, as to do otherwise may be a waste of money.

However, there is a very important competing consideration and it is as follows: The Board’s discussion with its broker will likely reveal that insurance purchased by the condominium corporation is usually less than a quarter of the price that a unit owner pays for the same dollar value of coverage. This makes it imperative that a cost-benefit analysis is considered when excluding items from the by law. In other words you do not want to exclude so many items to the point where owners are paying much more collectively, as a result, compared to what the corporation would have paid to provide the same coverage. One must bear in mind that this is not an exact science and perfection cannot be achieved in a standard unit by-law.

When describing the features, clarity and detail become an issue. The Board’s goal should be to clearly describe the standard unit so that both unit owners and the corporation are aware of their respective responsibili-

Jonathan Fine Stephen Goodbaum Michael Pascu Maria Dimakas

ties. This is the purpose of the standard unit by-law. The Board should also consider how effective its description will be many years after the by-law is passed. As a result, the usage of brand names is not recommended and is not as important as describing the item itself. After all, a particular brand may not be in existence or available in years to come. Other items to consider when describing features are colour, finish and quality.

As a means of assistance when drafting the by-law, a board of directors may wish to consider the standard features contained within the typical builder’s unit supplied to purchasers when the building was first constructed. This information would be best obtained by reference to an original agreement of purchase and sale, as between the developer and an initial purchaser of the unit, if available. The other alternative is to examine a unit within the building that is still in its original state (i.e. with the “as built” materials still in

Mario Deo Joseph Ryan Marco Graziani

www.finedeo.com • (905) 760-1800 • 1-888-FINEDEO

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

29

place). A clearly drafted list of features should go a long way in providing clarity and diminishing disputes (with respect to materials) as between unit owners and the condominium corporation.

The Exclusion of Floors From the Standard Unit By-Law It is a very common practice to exclude floors from the standard unit by-law.

For the most part, this is recommended by insurance advisors. The writers agree with the recommendation for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the removal of floors will eliminate the incidents of fraudulent claims made by some owners for the sake of getting a new floor. These such claims have the effect of potentially raising the cost of insurance premiums for all unit owners.

Secondly, the removal of floors will assist in keeping the deductible of the corporation lower because floor damage is one of the most common sources of claims.

Thirdly and very importantly, if the corporation has a very high deductible, say $15,000 (which is not unusual), the removal of floors from the standard unit may actually assist the unit owner in being insured for the loss where he or she would not have been insured if floors were included in the by-law.

It works like this; where a unit owner causes damage (let’s say a toilet overflow that is the owner’s fault) and the damage is to the floor in the amount of $12,000, then (assuming that the corporation has a $15,000 deductible) the owner would be responsible for up to the amount of the corporation’s deductible pursuant to the Act. In this example, the owner would be responsible for $12,000. Accordingly, the owner would then have to claim under his own policy for the reimbursement of that amount under the contingent building coverage portion of the policy (the part of the policy that covers own-

30

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

ers for deductible liability to the condominium corporation). The problem is twofold; First, most, but not all, homeowner policies have contingent building coverage. Second, many contingent building coverage provisions have upper limits of $4000 to $5000 (but may be increased, only by specific request to the owner’s insurer). The owner would then be uninsured for the remaining $7000 to $8000 owed to the

corporation in this case. However, if the flooring is excluded by a standard unit by-law, the owner would have coverage for the damage under his or her own policy, where the deductible is usually only around $500 - a much better result for everyone involved. This example is provided on the assumption that the unit owner has the normal insurance policy for condominium owners. ■

What Happens if Boards Don’t Abide by the Condo Act?

BY DONALD GRAVES, ASSISTANT EDITOR “CONDO NEWS”, PRESIDENT HCC #32 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Interesting Question.

Is there a Board member out there who hasn’t ignored a Condo Act principle… or at least thought about it?

O

ne owner constantly parked his car in a visitor spot. His friend, a Board member, urged the Board to cut him some slack.

Within a month four visitor spots were regularly occupied with owner vehicles.

The Condo Act requires Board members to act in good faith with due diligence. In this case it means a fair, impartial and consistent application of the condo rule.

• • •

A Board chose not to enforce a no pet rule for the past ten years. One Board member had a cat, several owners had indoor-only-no-mess cats as well. One had a tiny dog — it remained indoors as well. Then a new owner brought in a small dog — not quite indoors and not quite mess free. Four unit sales later and there were two more dogs and three cats — and a little mess.

The Board moved to enforce their no pet rule. The ten year owner refused stating that the Board lost its right to apply the rule through years of neglecting to do so. The new owners felt the same. So did the Judge. Again, the Board failed the owners by not applying the policies and rules as required by the Act. • • •

For many years a Board deferred maintenance or had tasks performed by the cheapest possible means using questionable materials. Their goal was laudable: keep condo fees down and avoid a special assessment at all costs.

The years passed… the maintenance backlog increased and the building exterior began to look shabby. The owners who were grateful for the low condo fees began to complain that the shoddy look was adversely affecting the value of their units. Especially when the central air system packed it in, a leak developed in the underground parking and one of the elevators… stopped!

The Condo Act makes it clear how Boards need to respond with the prepa-

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

31

PROVIDING EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE TO THE CONDOMINIUM INDUSTRY FOR OVER 25 YEARS SPECIALIZING IN COMPLETE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Residential High-rise & Townhouse Condominiums Industrial & Commercial Condominiums

Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP Barristers and Solicitors

GMA - The Condolawyers™ (Winning Condominium Law Solutions)

Hands-On Management Individually Designed and Tailored To Meet And Exceed Your Communities Needs For more information, please contact: Gary Atkin, RCM, ACCI Matthew Atkin, RCM, CMOC, ARM, CPM or Nathan Atkin, B.A., RCM G.S. Atkin Property Management Specialist Inc. One Shady Lawn Court Mississauga, Ontario L5N 1H2 24-Hour Emergency Line (905)-567-6820 Direct Line: (416)-258-6011 Fax: (905)-567-6930 Website: www.gsa-pm.com Email: info@gsa-pm.com

We led the battle for improvements to the new Act and Regulations Our standard of excellence focuses on practical legal solutions for Condominium Boards J. Robert Gardiner Mark H. Arnold Gerald T. Miller Christopher Jaglowitz Warren D. Ragoonanan

1202 - 390 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2Y2 Tel: (416) 363-2614 Fax: (416) 363-8451 www.gmalaw.ca

When “Personal Service Beyond The Contract” Really Counts!

There Is Only One Name

Property Management Services Inc. 1256 Cardiff Blvd., Unit A Mississauga, Ontario Phone: (905) 696 (8376) Fax: (905) 696-0729 jvero@veropropertymanagement.com www.veropropertymanagement.com Condominium Property Management Specialists

32

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

ration of reserve fund studies, the communication of the results to owners and with the development of operating budgets that ensure the ongoing maintenance of corporation assets.

• • • Each of these examples brought Board members into conflict with the owners who chose them to represent their needs. Board members are volunteers, they are owners who live in the complex and are subject to the same pressures that we all deal with in living in close quarters, be it high-rise or townhouse.

Friends and neighbours apply friendly persuasion for a favour… to look the other way… just this once. Sometimes friends and neighbours apply a not so subtle pressure for those same favours.

Emotions can run high.

The Act provides the tools for the board member to do her/his job without pressure from any owner. The tools are guidelines and principles by which

Board members can go about their duties in a reasonable, impartial manner. The Act affords Board members protection from these pressures and obligates them to demonstrate their due diligence to the community (owners) they serve. It provides the opportunity for transparency.

I cannot imagine a more difficult job than being a volunteer on a Board that serves a constituency that in the end can be self-serving and quick to blame. The object of all this attention is your home, your place of refuge, perhaps your largest investment, the place where you expect to escape from the rules of the world.

The Condo Act is the referee that makes walking this tightrope possible.

Reprinted from the CCI Golden Horseshoe “Condo News” – Autumn 2006 issue. ■

Have you Recently had your Condo AGM? Take this opportunity to make sure that all newly elected Directors have a copy of CCI’s pocket sized version of the Condominium Act …perfectly sized to bring along to all Board meetings. To order. download an order form from our website at www.ccitoronto.org – or order your copy online. ™

Act, 1998 Condominium

And don’t forget to update the CCI Toronto and Area Chapter office with the name(s) suite numbers and email addresses of new Directors in order that they may begin receiving their copy of the CondoVoice and updates on upcoming events and courses. minium Canadian Condo

Institute

of forms and extracts Including Selected 49/01 ions 48/01 and Ontario Regulat Managers Directors and for Condominium

ium Institute Canadian Condomin East, Suite 310 Avenue 2175 Sheppard M2J 1W8 Toronto, Ontario

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

33

FCCI and DSA Nominations FCCI and DSA Nominations for CCI Toronto and Area Chapter members are being accepted by the Chapter Board until July 31st, 2007. If you know of a deserving CCI Toronto and Area member you would like to nominate for either of these prestigious awards, we encourage you to visit the CCIToronto and Area website for full details and to download a nomination form.

FCCI – Fellow of the Canadian Condominium Institute What is it?

Fellowship was created to recognize and honour associate members (ACCIs) whose meritorious service to the Institute or to the condominium community best exemplifies the standards expected of our professional members. While many associates may be deserving of recognition for their efforts, the FCCI is reserved for those who have demonstrated not only excellence in their chosen professions but who have also clearly demonstrated their support, promotion and participation with CCI, or, alternatively, have had an extraordinary positive impact on the condominium community. It is important, therefore, that nominees truly meet the very high standard we have set in order to keep this award meaningful.

Qualifications 1. Nominee must be a current or former Professional Associate (ACCI) of the CCI- Toronto and Area Chapter.

2. Nominees must have distinguished themselves by: a) active participation in CCI as a volunteer at the Chapter or National level b) outstanding service to the condominium community at the local, provincial or national level c) their promotion of CCI and its Mission Statement, or d) a singular achievement that has a significant and beneficial impact on CCI or the condo34

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

minium community at the chapter, provincial or national level.

have set in order to keep this award meaningful.

Nomination:

Qualifications

The individual must be nominated by three members in good standing of CCI-Toronto & Area. The nominee shall NOT be advised of his/her nomination in advance. A FCCI Nomination Form shall be completed in full and submitted to the Toronto & Area chapter office no later than Friday July 31st, 2007. Nominees approved by CCI National, shall be awarded their FCCI at the Annual Awards Dinner in November 2007.

1. The nominee must be an Individual or Sponsor member of the CCI Toronto and Area Chapter or be affiliated as a Director or Unit Owner of a Condominium Corporation member of the Toronto & Area Chapter.

2. During this affiliation, nominees must have distinguished themselves by any one or more of the following: • their active participation in CCI as a volunteer at either the Chapter or National level, • their outstanding service to the condominium community at a local, provincial or national level • their promotion of CCI and its Mission Statement • a singular achievement that has a significant and beneficial impact on CCI or the condominium community at the chapter, provincial or national level.

DSA – Distinguished Service Award What is it?

The DSA Distinguished Service Award was created to honour individuals who have made an outstanding contribution to the Canadian Condominium Institute or to the condominium community. It is a National honourary designation to be awarded to those deserving individuals who, by their volunteer work or other achievements have brought distinction to CCI, exemplify the standards that CCI promotes and serve as a positive role model for others. It is important that, as their peers, we recognize these friends of CCI for the time and effort they have contributed to our organization and community.

Many volunteers will be deserving of recognition for their efforts, but the DSA is reserved for those who stand head and shoulders above the rest. It is important, therefore, that nominees truly meet the very high standard we

Nomination The individual must be nominated by three members in good standing of CCI-Toronto & Area Chapter. The nominee shall NOT be advised of his/her nomination in advance. A DSA Nomination Form shall be completed in full and submitted to the Toronto & Area chapter office no later than Friday July 31st, 2007. Nominees approved

by CCI National, shall be awarded their DSA at the Annual Awards Dinner in November 2007.

Nomination forms for both the FCCI and DSA Awards are available online at: www.ccitoronto.org ■

The Proposed New Water Supply Bylaw by the City of Toronto SUBMITTED BY BOB GIRARD, CCI-T SPECIAL PROJECTS CHAIR The City of Toronto is proposing a new Water Supply Bylaw that harmonizes the existing bylaws from the former 6 municipalities into one.

The bylaw will establish standard fees and rates for water services. The bylaw also includes water conservation and backflow prevention measures. The goal of the bylaw is to provide a balanced cost structure, as well as protect the integrity of Toronto’s water supply.

To all developments for which either a site plan approval or a building permit was issued prior to the date of the enactment of this bylaw, the city will install remote readout to each condominium unit that • is in contact with the ground, and possessing a footprint on the surface of the ground; and

• has either the front, rear or flank of the unit adjacent to the city waterworks; and • has no other condominium unit directly above or below the condominium unit, except in a condominium development where there are 4 or fewer condominium units which meet all the above criteria. (i.e.

Curbside townhouses).

each device appropriately tagged and all such devices are to be tested and certified every five (5) years by a professional Engineer.

The city will require, of all new and existing industrial, commercial, institutional and multi-unit residential buildings, the installation of a cross connection control device or backflow prevention device in order to prevent any substance from entering the city waterworks, installed as per CSA B64 Series Standard. A survey of all cross connection control devices or backflow prevention devices is to be undertaken,

A schedule of fines for non compliance to the bylaw has been established.

Any building-wide water shut down will require, 48 hours in advance, notification be given to residents, the General Manager of city water and the city’s Medical Officer of Health.

The proposed Bylaw will go before Council Fall of 07.

For further information please contact Jenny Willar of the City of Toronto Public Consultation Unit at 416-392-4312.

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

35

Social Host Liability DENISE LASH ACCI, FCCI, MILLER THOMSON

D

rinking and driving. The dangers are widely known but the problem persists. Its something we all need to be conscious of when attending events where alcohol may be served.

Accidents caused by impaired drivers can have devastating consequences on all involved. Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada weighed in on one such case and the decision may have important implications for condominium residents.

The events giving rise to the case were tragic. A couple hosted a New Year’s Eve party at their house. It was a “BYOB” event — bring your own booze. One of the guests drank excessively. The hosts were not aware he was impaired, nor was there evidence that they had served him drinks.

Shortly after midnight, the guest left the party and was in a head-on collision with another vehicle carrying four people. One of those passengers was killed and the other three were seriously injured. Of those three passengers, Zoe Childs, was left paralyzed from the waist down.

The guest was convicted of various criminal offences and received a sentence of ten years. Ms. Childs sued the guest, as well as the two hosts of the party. The Supreme Court denied Ms. Childs’ claim against the two hosts, deciding that as a general rule, the host of a private party where alcohol is served (referred to as “social host” in legal terms) is not liable to a member of the public for injuries caused by a guest, unless the host was actively involved in creating or contributing to

the event that caused the injury (the Court was clear that simply hosting a party where alcohol is served was insufficient in this regard).

Why is this decision significant for condominium boards and residents? Think about all of the social gatherings that occur almost on a daily basis in condominium communities. The parties organized by the condominium board for its residents during the holiday season, the summer barbeques where there may be guests invited who live outside of the condominium or simply a few neighbours getting together for some evening cocktails. What are the potential implications for the board and the residents involved when alcohol starts to be consumed?

The Supreme Court’s decision means that as a general rule, social hosts, such as condominium corporations and residents, will not be held responsible for the actions of their guests once they leave the party. This conclusion seems fair and reasonable. The Supreme Court recognized the importance of guests being held accountable for their own actions and not forcing social hosts to bear those consequences. The Court found that social hosts are generally not expected to monitor their guests’ drinking, nor do they have an effective means for doing so. In contrast, the Supreme Court has previously recognized that commercial hosts (bars, restaurants, taverns), who operate within a highly regulated environment but nonetheless have an incentive to encourage their patrons to drink, are under a duty to ensure that they monitor the consumption of their patrons and

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

37

may be held liable for injuries suffered by members of the public caused by impaired patrons.

However, it is important to note that in the Childs case the Supreme Court stated that it was not deciding the issue of whether a social host who continues to serve an already visibly intoxicated guest should be found liable for injuries caused by the guest to members of the public. This important distinction from the circumstances in Childs will remain unresolved until an appeal involving

those facts makes its way to the Supreme Court. In the United States, some states have imposed liability on social hosts in those circumstances.

Regardless of how that question is answered in Canada, we should all continue to act responsibly whenever we are in social situations where alcohol may be served.

Denish Lash is a condominium lawyer at Miller Thomson LLP and host of the television show Mondo Condo. â–

The Perfect Focal Point for Any Room Requires no installation or venting, making them ideal for condos.

Just plug it in for instant ambiance, redecorate without the renovations.

Operates for pennies per day.

Use with or without heat for year round enjoyment.

With the largest selection in the city, we have the perfect solution for every space and every budget.

38

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

Check Out the CCI Bookstore at www.ccitoronto.org Resource material for Condominium Owners, Managers and Boards of Directors

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

39

40

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

New Members Welcome to the Following New CCI Toronto Members Corporate Members

Sponsor (Trade) Members

PCC # 0055

Fedak Jozef Fedak Landscaping Inc./ Fedak Enterprises

PCC # 0571 TSCC # 1761 TSCC # 1790

Don Robinson Lynx Systems Inc.

TSCC # 1808 YCC # 0482

Wolfgang Osada Rikos Ltd.

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

41

Director’s Corner

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS BY MR D.

Q

Once again I have received a question pertaining to expenditures from the reserve fund and this one raises an interesting point.

The builder- installed carpet has prematurely worn and needs to be replaced and the Board feels that for this particular location tiles would be a more appropriate replacement. Is the Board obliged to replace the carpet with carpet as that is what is mentioned in the Reserve Fund Study or can the cost of the tiles be funded up to the Reserve Fund limit for the carpet and use tiles?

A

Mr D. has always been of the opinion that the Reserve Fund Study is only a guideline to ensure that funds are available for and when they are needed. Therefore if the Board wishes to replace the carpet with tiles as this would be a prudent thing to do then by all means go ahead.

Naturally this does not necessarily mean replacing a $500 carpet with $1,000 worth of tiles but if it could be shown that it was a justifiable expense and would enhance and/or improve the common elements and was reasonable then a case could be made for that scenario.

Q

Special Assessment or Bank Loan?

A

There are some Boards that feel that “Special Assessment” is a dirty word as it arouses all sorts of emotions in owners and often triggers requisition meetings. So some Boards feel that going for a loan would be less onerous on the owners and also the Board. Mr “D” feels that with a Special Assessment it’s all over and done with, but a loan would in essence mean an additional lien on the unit making it harder to sell, not to mention the bookkeeping involved in charging interest or the owner who would rather pay-off their portion of the loan and not be bothered with increased common area fees.

If you have a question for Mr “D” please send it to Editor, TheCondoVoice, cci.toronto@taylorenterprises.com.

42

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

Condominiums and Human Rights A Symposium on human rights issues as they affect condominiums. Where have we been and where are we going? Impact on day-to-day administration. Dealing with a human rights complaint or claim.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 • Doubletree International Plaza Hotel 655 Dixon Road, Toronto, Ontario Full Day Event – 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Two morning presentations Lunch with Keynote Speaker Two afternoon presentations Separate question and discussion sessions in both the morning and the afternoon.

Visit the CCI-National website at www.cci.ca/Events for information on Symposia Sponsorship Presentations, debate and discussion, at each venue, on issues of both national and local concern with speakers prominent and well respected, both national and locally, for their positions with Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals; as legal advocates on Human Rights and Condominium issues; as practitioners before Human Rights tribunals; and as practitioners in the Condominium industry.

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

43

DONNA SWANSON ACCI, FRI

Real Estate Brokerage

For your Real Estate Needs call: 416-515-2121 • Real Estate Broker - specializing in Condominium Sales since 1982 • Current condominium owner, Past Director & President of Condominium Corporation • ACCI - An Associate of the Canadian Condominium Institute • Past Director of Toronto Chapter of CCI • FRI - Fellow of the Real Estate Institute of Canada and current Director of Toronto Chapter of REIC

Email: donnaswanson@sympatico.ca

TORONTO CONDO SHOW ‘07 October 19, 20 & 21 Metro Toronto Convention Centre

Ideas for Living The High Life • Premier condo projects across the GTA • Savvy Designers

• Furnishings and electronics for the condo lifestyle • Expert legal, financial and real estate advice

For information visit: www.torontocondoshow.com or call 416-739-7773

44

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

Upcoming Fall CCI Events Condo 101 Course Date:

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Time:

9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m.

Location: Novotel North York Hotel Cost:

$60 for CCI Members and $95 for Non Members

This half-day seminar will focus on the topics that every Director should be aware of and will provide participants with a basic knowledge of the condominium Act. The course is an excellent means to find out what you need to know to be effective as a condominium owner or director.

The information presented will be of interest to those purchasing a condominium or to those who want to know what a condominium is and what it means to live in one.

Basic Condominium Course Dates:

Time:

Tuesday, September 25th, October 2nd, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. each evening

Location: Novotel North York Hotel Cost:

$300 for CCI Members and $400 for Non-Members

This informative six night course is a must attend for all new Directors or Condominium Residents who want a better understanding of the way Condominiums function and should operate.

Topics covered include: The Directors' Role, Insurance, Property Management, Budgets and Finance, Reserve Funds, Physical Building Management and Effective Meetings.

CCI-National Human Rights Symposium 11th Annual CCI/ACMO Condominium Conference: Building Better Communities – Going Green!

Dates:

Friday, November 2nd and Saturday, November 3, 2007

Times:

8:00 to 6:00 on November 2nd and 8:00 to 3:30 on November 3rd

Location: Doubletree International Plaza Hotel – 655 Dixon Road, Toronto Cost:

Early Bird rate for members registering before Sept. 24th is $275.

Non-member fee is $400

This popular two day conference and trade show designed for condominium managers, directors, owners and others interested in ‘everything condominium’ will focus this year on ‘Building Better Communities – Going Green”. The spectacular line up of speakers and topics to be covered this year are sure to offer “green” ideas and solutions to managers and directors alike.

The conference will kick off with a keynote presentation by Guy Dauncey, an international speaker, who is also the founder and President of the BC Sustainable Energy Association. Guy will share a vital and upbeat message about our planet, and the many ways in which we can help to sustain it. Other session topics include: Green Landscaping; Energy Savings for the New Millennium; Grow-Ops; LEED Buildings; Smart Metering; Dealing with TARION; Clean Air; Fire/ Emergency Response; Business Integrity; Gerry, John and Mark’s Fascinating World of Condominiums; and the Year’s Review and Case Law Update.

Date:

Wednesday October 31, 2007

Time:

9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Location: Doubletree International Plaza Hotel – 655 Dixon Road Condominiums and Human Rights… A symposium on Human Rights issues as they affect condominiums. Where have we been and where are we going? What is the impact on day-to-day administration? Dealing with human rights complaints and claims on both a national and local level.

Visit the CCI-National website at www.cci.ca for further details as they become available.

CCI-National 25th Anniversary Gala Dinner Date:

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Time:

6:00 p.m.

Location: Doubletree International Plaza Hotel Check the CCI National website at www.cci.ca for further details as they become available.

Sponsorship and exhibit opportunities are still available – visit www.condoconference.ca for full conference details.

Mark your calendars!

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

45

46

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

Diversions & Distractions CONDO WORD FIND p s e u c e b r a b c e s d d s l e

r e s i d e n t i a l c d e i e l c

o p e r t n e l e e l i n m t g t t i h e s t t r e v d i n g n l c o n i u b r o f n e r o c e r a l s h g n e f y c u f n a n e t

y s n n o f i e s n s c i e m o t i e s e e e e s r o o w i c r n a p n e n i a

o i

t o w n h o u s e r

a t t n e m t r a p o a n

i n r f v o r e o o s l n t f t e d c e l h t s f d u s u b j f e c a l n f o f n e m u c c o l w l m e d i a t

m d e v l o v n i f i e p u r i o i

i s t n e t n o c e a c e n i e o o

l i a b i l i t y r p t r d f n p n

aiding apartment balconies barbecues club contents deal dish enforce enforcing enter fee fees fence firm floor for front

full fund invested investment involved liability lien light limitations maintenance mediation new notice occupancy omission own paid policy

Summer 2007

pool property records replace residential subject the title townhouse transfer use

thecondovoice

47

• Condominium cleaning specialists • WHMIS Trained Cleaners • Underground garage cleanup • Quality control communication log sheet • Floors – wax and polishing • Uniformed cleaners on premises • Fully trained, bonded and insured • Commercial and industrial cleaning services • Carpet and window cleaning

48

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

Total Security Solutions for Condominiums • • • • •

Visitor entry phones Access control Video surveillance Hands-free parking control 24/7 alarm monitoring

Lorne Middleton Manager, Sales & Operations, Central Ontario 5201 Explorer Drive Mississauga, Ontario L4W 4H1

Phone: 905-206-8458 Fax: 905-206-8486 lmiddleton@chubbsecurity.com www.chubbsecutiry.com

Summer 2007

thecondovoice

49

List of Advertisers A.R. Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 ACMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Active Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Adams Masin & Tilley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Arthur Fire Protection Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Atrens Management Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Bonita Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Brokers Trust Insurance Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Brookfield Residential Services Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Brown & Beattie Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Canlight Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Carma Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 CCF Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Certified Clean Air Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 Chubb Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Cochrane GENIVAR Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Condominium Services Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Construction Control Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 CPL Design Interiors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Davroc Consulting Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Donna Swanson Real Estate Brokerage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Downtown Electric Fireplace Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 D-Tech (Nexus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 E.J. Walsh & Co. Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Enbridge Electric Connections Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Enbridge Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Enerplan Building Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 Essential Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Fine & Deo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Firenza Plumbing & Heating Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Gerald R. Genge Building Consultants Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 G4S Security Services Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 GSA Property Management Specialists Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Harris Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Horlick Levitt Barristers & Solicitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 ICC Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 JCO & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Larlyn Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Les Consultants Ingenium (Condo Manager Software) . . . . .39 Maple Hill Tree Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 M & E Engineering Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Maclaren Corlett LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Malvern Condominium Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Maxium Condo Finance Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 McCall Wynne Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Metro Group of Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Miller Thomson LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Morrison Hershfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Ontario Screen Systems Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Percel Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Pro-House Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Provident Energy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 RBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 RIKOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Rogers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 Rumack, Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Samuel Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Sayland Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Seal-Tite Roofing & Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Soundivide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 SR Wise Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Stratacon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Summa Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Suncorp Valuations Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Toronto Hydro Energy Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Vero Property Management Services Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Waste Solutions Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Whiterose Janitorial Services Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Wilson Blanchard Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

50

thecondovoice

Summer 2007

thecondovoice “TheCondoVoice” is published 4 times per year – Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter, by the Canadian Condominium Institute - Toronto & Area Chapter.

Newsletter Directors: Mario Deo & Brian Horlick Editor: Ruth Max Advertising: Marie McNamee Composition: E-Graphics All advertising enquiries should be directed to Marie McNamee at (905) 852-2802 or marie@mcnamee.ca, or cci.toronto@taylorenterprises.com.

Publications Mail Agreement #40047005 - Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to Circulation Dept. 2175 Sheppard Ave. E., Suite 310, Toronto, ON M2J 1W8 The author, the Canadian Condominium Institute and its representatives will not be held liable in any respect whatsoever for any statement or advice contained herein. Articles should not be relied upon as a professional opinion or as an authoritative or comprehensive answer in any case. Professional advice should be obtained after discussing all particulars applicable in the specific circumstances in order to obtain an opinion or report capable of absolving condominium directors from liability [under s. 37 (3) (b) of the Condominium Act, 1998]. Authors’ views expressed in any article are not necessarily those of the Canadian Condominium Institute. All contributors are deemed to have consented to publication of any information provided by them, including business or personal contact information.

Consider supporting the advertisers and service providers referred to in this magazine, recognizing that they have been supporters of CCI. Advertisements are paid advertising and do not imply endorsement of or any liability whatsoever on the part of CCI with respect to any product, service or statement.