Page 1

VOL. 15, NO.4 • SUMMER 2011

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

Condo of the Year, 4th Quarter Finalist Quantum 2 North - TSCC #1965

Plus: ■

■ ■ ■ ■

Condo Owners’ Comprehensive Insurance Provisions A Tale of Two Lobbies How Do Boards Get Paid? What Your Board Can’t Tell You Condominum Corporations, Unit Owners and the Right to Privacy

How Does Your Building Perform? The Power of Benchmarking and Establishing an Energy Reduction Plan

Green Condo Champions: A Survey of Energy Performance in 50 Condominiums

Don’t Keep the Home Fires Burning

… and more

PM #40047055

Canadian Condominium Institute / Institut canadien des condominiums Toronto & Area Chapter 2175 Sheppard Ave. E., Suite 310, Toronto, ON M2J 1W8 Tel.: (416) 491-6216 Fax: (416) 491-1670 E-mail: Website:

2010/2011 Board of Directors PRESIDENT Bill Thompson, BA, RCM, ACCI, FCCI (Member, Education Committee,Member, Membership Committee, Chair, Conference Committee) Malvern Condominium Property Management

VICE-PRESIDENTS Brian Horlick, B.Comm., B.C.L., LL.B., ACCI (Member, Legislative Committee, Member, Government Relations Committee, Member, Conference Committee) Horlick Levitt Di Lella LLP Mario Deo, LL.B. (Member, Public Relations Committee Member, Conference Committee) Fine & Deo LLP

Contents Features

9 11 12 15 18

PAST PRESIDENT Armand Conant, B.Eng., LL.B., D.E.S.S. (Chair, Legislative Committee, Co-Chair, Government Relations Committee) Heenan Blaikie LLP

BOARD MEMBERS Gordon Chong, DDS (Member, Legislative Committee Member, Government Relations Committee Member, Public Relations Committee) MTCC # 0620 Jeff Jeffcoatt, P.Eng, BDS, RCM (Member, Education Committee Chair, Health and Safety Committee) Construction Control Inc. Lisa Kay, BA, CCI (Hons) (Member, Public Relations Committee, Member, Conference Committee, Member, Special Projects Committee) JCO & Associates Julian McNabb, BA (Member, Membership Committee Chair, Public Relations Committee) Simerra Property Management Inc. Vic Persaud, BA (Chair, Membership Committee, Member, Special Projects Committee) Suncorp Valuations Ltd. Sally Thompson, P.Eng. (Member, Education Committee Member, Legislative Committee) Halsall Associates Ltd. John Warren, C.A. (Chair, Education Committee Member, Legislative Committee) Adams & Miles LLP


by J. Robert Gardiner

How Do Boards Get Paid? by Michael H. Clifton

What Your Board Can’t Tell You by Lavonne McCumber-Eals

A Tale of Two Lobbies by John Warren

A Personal Matter: Condominum Corporations, Unit Owners and the Right to Privacy by Brian Horlick


SECRETARY/TREASURER Bob Girard, B.Comm, RCM, ACCI, FCCI (Chair, Special Projects Committee/President’s Club Sessions, Member, Education Committee) AA Property Management & Associates

Condo Owners’ Comprehensive Insurance Provisions

How Does Your Building Perform? - The Power of Benchmarking and Establishing an Energy Reduction Plan by Adrien Deveau & David Uren

45 47 50 53

Getting Ready for Your AGM? - A Time Line for AGM Preparations provided courtesy of the CCI-Golden Horseshoe Chapter

Don’t Keep the Home Fires Burning by Laura Muirhead

Administrative Tips on How to Run an Efficient Board Meeting provided courtesy of the CCI-Golden Horseshoe Chapter

Green Condo Champions: A Survey of Energy Performance in 50 Condominiums by Bryan Purcell


You’ve Bought A Condo...Now What? – Part II by Julian McNabb

CCI News 5 6 28 32 33 35 37 38 39 43

President’s Message From the Editor Condo of the Year - 4th Quarter Finalist CCI-Toronto Networking Dinner Recap ACCI Member Profile Communicating the Benefits of your Membership! CCI-T, ACMO, Submit Proposed Changes to Ontario Condominium Act Legislative Update CCI-T Committee Update New Members

Summer 2011



Contributors “TheCondoVoice” is published 4 times per year – Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter, by Taylor Enterprises Ltd. on behalf of the Canadian Condominium Institute Toronto & Area Chapter. EDITOR: Mario Deo MAGAzINE DIRECTORS: Gordon Chong, Lisa Kay, Julian McNabb ADvERTISING: Maria Galati COMPOSITION: E-Graphics All advertising enquiries should be directed to Maria Galati at (416) 491-6216 ext.238 or If you are interested in writing articles for TheCondoVoice magazine, please contact Maria Galati at (416) 491-6216 Ext 238 or at Article topics must be on issues of interest to Condominium Directors and must be informative rather than commercial in nature. The authors, 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. Publications Mail Agreement #40047055 Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to Circulation Dept. 2175 Sheppard Ave. E., Suite 310, Toronto, ON M2J 1W8



Summer 2011

Michael h. clifton (How Do Boards Get Paid?, page 11.) Michael Clifton is a Condominium Management and Land Development lawyer with the firm Clifton Kok LLP in Ayr, ON. He holds bachelor and master degrees in philosophy as well as a degree in law and he was called to the bar in 2000. Michael earned his ACCI designation from CCI in 2008 and has served on the Golden Horseshoe CCI Board of Directors since 2006. Michael has co-authored two Ontario Condominium law books, “A Planners and Municipalities Guide to the Condominium Act, 1998” and “Essential Issues for Realtors on the Condominium Act, 1998” adrien deveau, M.a.Sc., P.eng., & david uren, P.eng. (How Does Your Building Perform, page 21) Adrien Deveau is the Business Manager for Halsall’s Green Planning and Design team, including their Energy Services group. He has been instrumental in building Halsall’s team to be one of the largest and most accomplished green building groups in Canada. Adrien’s experience includes both new and existing buildings, and ranges across the commercial, residential and institutional sectors. Adrien is a NAIOP and BOMA member, and he serves on the NAIOP Toronto Chapter Sustainability Committee. He frequently gives presentations on Green Building at industry events and has been featured on BNN’s “Business of Green” discussing building energy use. David Uren is a Senior Project Manager for Halsall’s Building Audits team. David has over 15 years of consulting engineering experience. More recently, he has been concentrating his efforts on the condominium industry, managing performance audits for new condominiums and reserve fund studies. David has also been involved in helping condominiums identify energy saving opportunities and take advantage of energy rebate programs. J. robert gardiner, b.a., ll.b., acci, fcci, (Condo Owners’ Comprehensive Insurance Provisions, page 9) is the senior partner of Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP, practising condominium law in Toronto. He has written or edited 10 books and 260 articles on condo law and is a past president of the Canadian Condominium Institute – Toronto. brian horlick, b.coMM., b.c.l. ll.b., acci (A Personal Matter: Condominium Corporations, Unit Owners and the Right to Privacy, page 18) has been successfully engaged in the practice of law for 25 years. He is a senior partner with the law firm of Horlick Levitt Di Lella LLP and is an expert in the area of condominium law. He is a director on the CCI Toronto Board and is a member of its

Legislative Committee. Brian is also a member of the CCI/ACMO Government Relations Committee and is Chair of the ACMO Associates Executive Communications Committee. lavonne MccuMber-ealS b.a., M.e.S., (What Your Board Can’t Tell You, page 12.) is a trained mediator on the roster for the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program. She has 26 years of experience mediating issues relating to communities in multi-unit buildings. Lavonne is a professional member of the Canadian Condominium Institute and sits on their Membership Committee. As well, she sits on the Property Standards Committee for the City of Toronto and East York. Julian Mcnabb, ba (You’ve Bought a Condo...Now What?Part II, page 56) is the Manager of New Community Development at Simerra Property Management Inc. He is also a CCI Toronto Director, Chair of the Public Relations Committee and sits on the Membership Committee. laura Muirhead (Don’t Keep the Home Fires Burning, page 47) is a Fire Safety Planning Consultant with the Code, Fire & Life Safety Group of GENIvAR Inc. Laura has over 10 years experience in the provision of Fire Safety Plans, training and fire drill reviews for all types of occupancy classifications. Laura can be reached at bryan Purcell, hba, Ma, (Green Condo Champions: A Survey of Energy Performance in 50 Condominiums, page 53) received his HBA from the University of Toronto in 2005 and his MA from McMaster University in 2008. He has worked extensively in the field of sustainability, most recently coordinating energy conservation programs with the University of Toronto Sustainability Office. He currently manages the TowerWise and LightSavers programs for the Toronto Atmospheric Fund. John M. Warren, c.a., (A Tale of Two Lobbies, page 15) is a partner with Adams & Miles LLP, Chartered Accountants. He is a Past president of the Canadian Condominium Institute-Toronto and Area Chapter and a past member of several committees of the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario. He is a frequent speaker at condominium conferences and seminars and is the author of a number of articles on accounting and financial matters in condominiums.

President’s Message he Canadian Condominium Institute is a national organization made up of people from across Canada who volunteer their time to help make the world of condominiums a better place. These volunteers come from every aspect of condominium life. Some are professionals, like Engineers, Lawyers, Accountants, Insurance Brokers and Realtors who, although they are regulated by their own professional bodies, still donate their valuable time without charge for your benefit. Others, who make their living in this industry like Property Managers and Trades donate their time to try and create a better place for their clients. Still yet, there are Board Members of condominiums who give freely to try and help other Boards, and other condominiums. This volunteer Army, with it’s wide body of knowledge and experience, is coordinated by a few individuals in each CCI Chapter so that the great effort being made for the industry will have the most effect and influence on condominiums.


The Toronto and Area Chapter of CCI is a perfect example of how that army of volunteers can make a difference. We are addressing Fair Taxation together with all of the other Ontario Chapters on the Ontario Caucus. We are cooperating with organizations like the Toronto Real Estate Board to bring education, understanding and clarity to the condominium real estate market, and all of those who deal with buying, selling and closing condominium sale transactions. We are working with green initiatives like those supported by the Toronto Atmospheric Fund to help find ways for condominiums to reduce their carbon footprint and at the same time, save money. We are working with Toronto Hydro to help find ways for electric cars to be seamlessly implemented into the condominium sector. We are working to try and make the Ontario Power Authority energy saving incentives more condo-friendly, so that more condominiums can take advantage of all of the incentive programs being offered to the public. Last, but not least, we are partnering with ACMO to complete the Legislative Brief in time for it to have some merit in the upcoming Provincial election. Hundreds of volunteers have given their input, and thousands of hours of their time, to put together an industry position paper on the Condominium Act, 1998. Keep your eyes open for our political initiative, to see if we can make the people who will form our next Provincial Government pay attention to the needs of this unique world of condominiums. It is our intent to work with our industry alliances and with other CCI Chapters and other associations to get the word out that condominiums can have a voice. All of that effort needs to be heard! As a supporter and believer in CCI, I would ask every reader to do whatever you can to help our initiatives. It doesn’t matter if your choice is to give your time as a volunteer on any of our many committees, or if you simply vote in favour of the Provincial candidate who supports the Condo vision. It is time to start thinking of condominiums as more than just a place to live, or to work. Condominiums are a large growing sector of society. They affect virtually every person living or working in Toronto. Condominiums are here to stay, so join this growing effort and make sure that they are the best that we can make them! Join me in thanking all of our volunteers for their selflessness and dedication to our efforts! Continued on page 64

Summer 2011



From the Editor “Proxy voting is not recommended for ordinary use. It can discourage attendance, and transfers an inalienable right to another without positive assurance that the vote has not been manipulated.” 1 This simple but succinct statement describes a significant problem in the use of proxies at meetings of condominium unit owners. While proxy abuse likely occurs in the minority of condominiums, where it occurs, the damage is usually devastating and long lasting. To illustrate proxy abuse, consider the history of presidential nominations in the United States. In 1968, at the Democratic Party presidential nominating caucus, the majority of delegates present voted in favour of Eugene McCarthy. However, when a presiding party official cast 492 proxy votes for his own slate of delegates—3 times the number of votes of those present—Hubert Humphrey won the presidential nomination. Subsequently, the “New Politics” movement charged that Humphrey and party bosses had circumvented the will of Democratic Party members by manipulating the rules to Humphrey’s advantage. As a result, proxy voting was banned. It is a relatively unknown fact that Robert’s Rules of Order for non-profit organizations automatically prohibits the use of proxies, unless the enabling legislation, the by-laws, or the charter of the organization allow it. Of course, we all know that the Condominium Act, 1998 allows the use of proxies. Perhaps it’s time that this automatic right be reconsidered or recreated in some way that more closely aligns with our innate understanding of the democratic principles voting by proxy implies. There are innumerable rules, regulations, by-laws and statutes designed to enhance fairness and to apply to the procedure governing condominium meetings. The procedure used is designed to provide unit owners at the meeting with the best information available to enable them to make an informed decision about those matters affecting their community. Why, then, is a proxy seeker not subject to the same or even similar procedures of fairness that are so carefully adhered to at meetings? We know that most proxy votes are generally obtained by way of a personal conversation between an interested owner/resident standing at the doorway of another unit owner. That unit owner is requested to sign a proxy for the reasons stated by the person at his or her door. Incredibly, with the exception of filling out the proxy form properly, there are absolutely no effective controls that apply to the person trying to convince the unit owner to provide the proxy. The proxy seeker is not subject to Robert’s Rules of Order in the doorway discussion. Thus, rules of fairness do not apply. Where issues are contentious there is no purposeful debate, as only one side of the coin is ever presented. A mandatory process by which all of the salient facts and figures are openly discussed in that doorway solicitation does not exist. The individual requesting the proxy can literally say: “If you don’t want your common expenses to increase, sign here and elect these candidates.” End of story. Practically speaking no one will ever know what was said. For all intents and purposes the doorway meeting is secret and without public scrutiny or observance. The person giving away the “doorway proxy” is absolutely convinced that he or she has done the right thing because, if nothing else, their common expenses will not increase. Meanwhile, the person signing the proxy does not know that the condominium corporation is mired in a multi-million dollar deficit which the present board of directors has worked hundreds of hours trying to fix. The result is that all of this tireless effort by the board will likely be defeated by the actions of an individual or individuals, acting in concert, to Continued on page 63 6


Summer 2011

Condo Owners’ Comprehensive Insurance Provisions BY J. ROBERT GARDINER, BA, LL.B., ACCI, FCCI, GARDINER MILLER ARNOLD LLP

ll unit owners at every condominium corporation should make sure they obtain their own comprehensive condominium owners’ insurance policy. Such an insurance policy can protect a unit owner from a wide range of risks.


The Corporation’s Insurance The condominium corporation’s insurance policy pays the cost of repairing damage to the common elements and the bare walls of the units. The corporation’s policy should also cover many of the standard improvements originally constructed within the unit by the declarant/builder (i.e., drywall, ceilings, light fixtures, electrical and plumbing components, kitchen cabinets, bathtubs, sink, toilets, closets, etc.). By now, older existing condominium corporations should have adopted a Standard Unit By-law. New condominium corporations registered after May 5, 2001 (when the Condominium Act, 1998 came into effect) are instead required to have a Standard Unit Schedule. In either case, they list the various types of standard unit components which the corporation is obligated to insure and repair after damage. The corporation’s policy will cover “major perils” and usually a selection of various extended perils, at full replacement cost, subject to reasonable deductible amounts. However, the corporation’s insurance policy will not cover all types of risks or damage to all types of property. For instance, the corporation’s insur-

ance policy will not cover damage to improvements and betterments made by owners (i.e., installing marble or mirrors on a wall), or the resident’s contents (i.e., furniture, household effects and all other possessions), nor does the corporation’s insurance policy cover personal injuries which may occur as a result of an accident in a unit.

ment, decorating, clothing, cameras, sporting equipment, computers, personal digital assistants, and other chattels contained within the unit [special expensive items such as art works, stamps, coins, jewellery, furs, etc. may require a special optional rider];

Moreover, the corporation’s policy does not cover various perils and exclusions. One example of a peril and/or exclusion is a unit owner’s responsibility to pay the lesser of either the corporation’s insurance deductible or the cost of repairing damage originating in the owner’s unit. The owner would be liable for damage affecting their unit, other units in the condo, as well as damage to the common elements. Flooring and countertops are usually excluded from qualifying as standard improvements and are not covered by the condo’s insurance.

(iii) the owner’s personal property and chattels stored elsewhere on the property, such as in a locker, parking space or automobile;

Owners’ Comprehensive Coverage As a result, unit owners are strongly urged to obtain and maintain their own comprehensive condominium unit owner’s insurance policy to provide coverage for the following perils: (i) any additions, alterations, improvements or betterments made by the owner to his/her unit and to any of the Standard Improvements or the common elements; (ii) contents insurance pertaining to furnishings, fixtures, equip-

(iv) additional living expenses arising from loss of use and occupancy of his/her unit in the event of damage if the owner is forced to leave his/her dwelling unit as a result of a peril covered by the owner’s policy; (v) contingent insurance, in the event the Corporation’s insurance does not cover a particular loss that ought to be insured by the Corporation under the Act; (vi) coverage pertaining to the corporation’s insurance deductible amount for which the owner may become responsible (see the condo’s deductible by-law provision); (vii) special loss assessment coverage pertaining to the costs of a special assessment levied by the Corporation to cover a shortfall between the actual cost of an insurable loss and the amount paid by the Corporation’s insurance ; Summer 2011



(viii) public liability insurance to a minimum $2,000,000.00 limit, providing standard all-risk public liability coverage of the owner or any resident, tenant, invitee or licensee of such owner’s unit, subject to usual exclusions and conditions; (ix) blanket glass coverage, sewer back-up coverage and food freezer coverage [may require a special optional rider]; (x) other insurance coverages may be obtained as part of a comprehensive condominium owner’s insurance package.

Other Considerations Unit owners should require their tenants to purchase a tenant’s contents and liability insurance policy when leasing the unit, since damages caused by the tenant’s negligence could cause the Corporation, its insurer and other owners or visitors to sue for damages (tenants, unlike owners and the Corporation, are not protected from claims by the Corporation and other unit owners). All insurance policies should provide full replacement coverage with appropriate deductible amounts and a waiver of any subrogated claim against the Corporation, its representatives, owners and residents. Owners and tenants who leave the unit vacant beyond the permitted vacancy period should arrange for interim inspections of the unit or your insurer’s consent. The Corporation’s insurance broker (see the corporation’s Insurance Certificate delivered to you each year) or your own insurance agent may best be able to provide a comprehensive condominium unit owner’s insurance policy which matches up to the Corporation’s insurance at a realistic premium cost. Consider providing a copy of this article to your insurance advisor, together with the Corporation’s Insurance Certificate and Standard Unit By-law or Schedule. Ask him/her to confirm you will receive comprehensive coverage. ■ 10


Summer 2011


he question that forms the title to this memo was asked in relation to a recent Question & Answer seminar put on by our firm. We thought that there might be some general interest in the answer.


Ask anyone who has ever been there, and they will tell you, being on the board of directors of a condominium corporation is not a paying position. First, you generally don’t actually get paid; and, second, you don’t really even get any “payback,” other than your own good feeling about doing something useful for your community (and sometimes you don’t even escape with that intact). If this were actually intended to be a commentary on the woes of being a condominium director, such statements could go on at greater length and with more detail, but I trust the reader gets the picture that, by and large, for all its virtues, board membership is a difficult, thankless and usually completely voluntary job. However, sometimes enterprising boards do find ways to reward themselves, and some unit owners are even willing to support them in so doing. The process is this easy: 1. The board comes up with a way it wishes to be rewarded (i.e., an honorarium; an annual dinner; a moderate stipend; and so forth) and drafts a detailed explanation of the same;

2. The explanation is put in the form of a by-law; 3. The by-law is presented to the unit owners at a meeting duly called for that purpose; 4. If passed, the by-law is registered on title to the units in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Condominium Act, 1998, (the “Act”) and comes into force on that day. This process is essential without regard to the nature, form or timing of the remuneration. A by-law is mandatory pursuant to the Act, and no board member, as such, is entitled to receive an honorarium, wages or any other benefit (i.e., dinner) from the corporation without one being in place. This is all part and parcel of the expected openness of condominium administration and responsible use of condominium funds. Two additional points about a Directors’ Remuneration By-law need to be made:

A. The by-law must specify an exact (or maximum) amount of permitted compensation; and B. The by-law must specify the period for which the remuneration is to be given, which cannot exceed three years. Provided the by-law is validly passed and registered, and such requisite information is clearly set out in it, the board can happily receive its reward for the period specified in the by-law, and, perhaps, during that period, feel a little better about its role when Mrs. X from Unit 20 is griping about the reserve fund (again), or when Mr. Y from Unit 10 is harassing the contractors (again), or Ms z in Unit 1 threatens to sue the board (again) because her unit was liened (again) for arrears of common expenses about which the board had already sent her three notices, and so on and so forth. ■

Summer 2011




eople buy into the condominium lifestyle for a variety of reasons: for opportunities to divest some of the responsibilities inherent in home ownership, to free up time to focus on other interests and to build or hold equity; a condo owner expects financial rewards when the time comes to sell. Yet when a condo owner joins the condo board, this relationship changes.


Directors are special because they are willing to give their time and energy to the sometimes chaotic decision making process. Their position is filled with intense scrutiny, open to criticism and fraught with ethical dilemmas which can alter their relationship with other condo stakeholders. The position of Director comes with its own extensive skill set. If fortunate, boards may draw directors who already have the necessary skills. By and large many directors specifically lack experience related to the everyday running of the condominium. This can be fortified by training from experts in the industry but oftentimes the board does not know or recognize the value of this option resulting in under-utilized directors or in lost opportunities. From the start, condominium board members begin to understand tensions in representing their communities; there is a marked change from when they began the process with the flattering



Summer 2011

decision to run for the board. Many envision offering their time and skills, getting involved and actively supporting their community as a rewarding opportunity. After all, putting yourself forward clearly indicates you see yourself as a reasonable, ethical person capable of reflective consideration. This idealization ends once you are elected and you begin to experience the competition of interests inherent in your role. You are required to sign a

Condominium Directors’ Code of Ethics where you agree to address any conflict of interest, actual or potential, direct or indirect and related to any material contract, transaction, building deficiency claim, warranty claim, legal action, proceedings or other matters detrimental to your corporation. The only problem is that no one fully explains what this means and what the implications are. In addition you are to do nothing to violate the trust of unit owners. As owner interest becomes

engaged, there can be many definitions as to what this means and how to balance this variety of interests. The director can be expected to make decisions that affect unit owners without providing residents with full disclosure of all relevant material. This is a daunting task for even the experienced. It is further complicated by the requirement to maintain confidentiality over board issues. While on the surface this may seem perfectly reasonable, how does one respond to a neighbour who approaches and asks “When does the leaky roof get fixed?”, “Is the Board doing its job?”, “Why did we elect you?”. Even stickier, how does the director answer their spouse when being asked “What did the Board do tonight?” These are just the simple questions. What happens, one must ask, when your stated opinion stands in contradiction to a board decision which you have agreed to abide by or when your board is moving to take confidential corrective action. How do you separate and advocate you as an owner from you as a director without breaching confidentiality? How do you react when you are being questioned in the courtyard by desperate owners? In a busy condo community, just as owners have a tendency to abdicate decisions to their elected board, boards tend to rely on their property management company to scope out decisions and options. This works until it does not. Oftentimes when a stalemate occurs, there are so many issues to deal with a board member can be overwhelmed. Needless to say, this leads to ongoing conflict which can escalate into a very unproductive board. Some enlightened boards are able to call on neutral expertise from trainers in the industry, but for those directors who do not know about this resource, the board begins to disintegrate. As in any human relationship, once trust is shaken or lost it can be difficult to get things back on track. Owners are often oblivious to the seriousness of the problem; they begin trying to understand what went wrong, or looking for whom is to blame. Energies

are scattered and can often be refocused by help from an external, neutral facilitator who can help the parties identify their priorities while diminishing the barriers of tensions that are building. An example that highlights one of the conflicts of interest a board must navigate regarding unit details is the commitment to keep information confidential; this is particularly significant when dealing with individual units. Owners are not permitted access to records of other specific units or owners. This can become problematic when interest is heightened by an event resulting in a police report. Not only does it expose the whole issue of confidentiality, it poses a dilemma in terms of the directors’ duty of care to the condo owners. Once the police are called, a full report is made and the parties are named. Once the director reads this how can he/she remove it from their mind? This problem obviously extends to the affected owners who will be keen to

follow the progress of dealing with their irksome neighbours. It is questionable whether the board can divulge such details and, if the board tries to mask this occurrence, will the board lose credibility with the owners? Everyone has an opinion. The other side could result in getting embroiled in a defamation suit. A costly, unsettling, time-consuming effort whatever the results. Adding an additional challenge is a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court which is notable to those issuing Status Certificates. These can create non-disclosure conflicts. The decision can create a Catch-22 situation for all directors and seems to be in conflict with the Condo Act S.55 which prohibits owners having access to records. Given this is a decision from the court, one might well be quite confused as to what one is to keep confidential and the definition of confidentiality. The Superior Court decision is seen to clarify a situation that might have previously caused the board to question

eXceeding your eXPectationS “...combined security and emergency response with concierge and hospitality.” “...our team prides itself on being able to provide our clients with a secure and pleasant environment in which to live.” “...Sentinel gives you the ability to search for records on a fully integrated, secure database.”


Pillar Security has been providing exceptional concierge and security services for upscale residential complexes for 17 years. We offer a unique level of service that focuses on superior communication with residents, board members and property management. as a company, we embrace a simple business philosophy of “exceeding your expectations”.

2333 dundas Street West, Suite 206 toronto, ontario M6r 3a6 direct line: 416-777-1812 fax: 416-777-0555

Summer 2011



whether their owner confidentiality issue supersedes the responsibility to disclose costly unit problems on a Status Certificate. Consider the issue of a board president signing the Status Certificate; clearly this individual must see that it includes all relevant information. The reader can see opportunity for misunderstanding by affected unit owners as these situations seem to be handled inconsistently. On the one hand, information is withheld from the owners while personal details may be identified on a Status Certificate. This can be further exasperated when personalities get involved. A board president who feels challenged, although doing his/her best, may show some frustration with an owner who does not understand the variables involved in the two different situations. Incorporating a conflict of interest declaration at the board level can help to clarify expectations and help to avoid



Summer 2011

unnecessary escalation(s). Without one a director may be confused as to when he/she needs to identify or recognize a potential conflict of interest, and an entire board could slide into a situation where they are serving individual interests while losing sight of what is best for their community at large.

Last year brought forward an example of a board in conflict, Swan v. Goan, [2110] O.J. No. 5072 which began five separate actions including defamation and libel in Small Claims Court. A board president began to act unilaterally, opinions were expressed and offence was taken.

Addressing this oversight can be a painful process. When unidentified conflicts of interest exist, directors may participate in votes where they declare a conflict of interest and step aside. It must be understood that boards have a special fiduciary duty which evolves around specific areas of need. Based on a discussion, for instance, around unexpected costs and identifying how they will be addressed in the near and ongoing future, board members may well be exposed to issues of confidentiality that they are then required, by their office, to address with owners. Clearly without proper training the potential for breaches of confidentiality exist.

Details aside, one can imagine that the condo community suffered greatly for the kerfuffle and may continue to experience owner reluctance to assume board responsibilities. The whole community loses beyond the financial costs. Conflict is both necessary and natural. It provides opportunity to learn and grow from expressed differing opinions and perspectives. The heat involved in working through divergent opinions can be ameliorated by a trained facilitator and need not end up fractured. â–

A Tale of Two Lobbies BY JOHN WARREN, C.A. ADAMS & MILES LLP This article was prepared for a seminar presented at the 2010 ACMO/CCI Condominium Conference he lobby of a condominium building is an extension of the front door to every owner’s suite and, though often taken for granted on a daily basis, lobby renovations always ignite great interest, diversity of opinion and even passion. Poorly handled, they can result in disaster and so, with apologies to Charles Dickens, let me tell you not a tale of two cities, but a tale of two


tions and requested comment from interested owners. As a result of comments received, a lobby renovation committee of 4 or 5 was struck with the chair being the condominium President, a wise old Chartered Accountant as it happened. The Committee interviewed design consultants and selected one for the project. The design consultant provided some initial suggestions and esti-

ditional looks. These were posted in the lobby for a month or so and owners were asked to comment and vote on which concept they preferred. Based on the comments received and the result of the vote, the board had two detailed design proposals prepared, including three colour schemes with wall covering and carpet samples and examples of furniture, These were displayed in the

‘Once they decided that the lobby needed renovation they embarked on a program to determine if the owners agreed and what they might want a new lobby to look like.’ lobbies. The first lobby is large, occupying most of the ground floor in a 200 unit, very nice high rise located along the 401 Highway. The second lobby is small, perhaps 15 feet or so across and is located in a 28 unit, luxury building in downtown Toronto, Both lobbies were renovated, but with very different results. Both condominiums had sufficient funds for the renovations they undertook so money concerns were not an issue. The first Board did it the right way. Once they decided that the lobby needed renovation they embarked on a program to determine if the owners agreed and what they might want a new lobby to look like. They issued a notice that they were considering lobby renova-

mated that costs for a complete renovation including moving the front desk and updating the security technology would be around $250,000. The President issued a very well written letter describing the project in general terms and the parameters the board used in arriving at the proposed scope. During this time the Annual General Meeting was held; the lobby renovation project and the price were discussed and general agreement was reached that the project should proceed and that $250,000 was in the ballpark. Even though the owners were on side in principle, the committee had the design consultant produce 2 concepts including artist’s conceptions of the new lobby with both contemporary and tra-

lobby and again owners where asked to comment and vote. Based on all this information and feedback, the board tweaked the design a bit and issued the final proposal with the colour scheme, fabrics, carpet and furniture they had chosen, including a more detailed cost estimate of $275,000. They waited a month and then the engineers and the design consultant prepared specifications and tendered the work to 5 prequalified contractors using industrystandard tender documents. The contractors submitted closed bids; the tenders were opened at a Board meeting called for the purpose, the contract was awarded to the lowest bidder at $292,000 and a new lobby was created over the next few months. All decisions made and matters discussed during this

Summer 2011



‘All decisions made and matters discussed during this project were recorded in the minutes of Board meetings.’ project were recorded in the minutes of Board meetings. The second Board was not nearly so wise. They decided to refurbish the lobby floor and walls and to replace the carpets, decorations and furniture and decided that it should cost $80,000, though the basis for that amount and the details of the project were never documented in Board minutes or other correspondence; the Board just appointed two board members to the project and sent them off. At no time did the Board consult with the owners, the only communication with them was through informal conversations in the elevators and lobby. Unfortunately, the two Board members could not agree - one thought only of antiques and leather and the other was in love with glass and plastic. Somehow, though it boggles the mind, they agreed to split the project into two and each went out and spent roughly $40,000 without further Board or owner input and the lobby was refurbished. The results, as you can imagine, could hardly have been more different. At the next Annual General Meeting of the first building, the Board was complimented, even lauded, for the new lobby though, as could be expected, one individual strongly expressed his disagreement with just about everything concerning the lobby. The President was prepared and asked if the owner had been at the previous AGM to make his views known? Had he participated in the survey on the first 2 concepts? Had he participated in the survey on the detailed design proposals, colour schemes, carpet and furniture examples? Had he commented on the final design? The answer being no to all questions, the President thanked the individual and moved on to the next agenda item. 16


Summer 2011

At the Annual General Meeting of the second building, the first 90 minutes were taken up with owner after owner expressing their dissatisfaction with the lobby renovations, even verbally abusing the Directors. By the end of the meeting it would be safe to say that the Board was disillusioned and disheartened and the owners were very unhappy. There were even allusions of impropriety. Most Board members either quit or did not stand for re-election. As a footnote, a few years later a new Board at this condominium followed almost the identical process to try to correct the deficiencies in the lobby. It’s odd to me but apparently it is possible to think that following the same process will produce a different and better result, but it did not and the lobby is still a bone of contention. The lessons to be learned are obvious and mostly common sense. Boards should not make these types of decisions without owner input. They should not have a private agenda about design, colours or furnishings but should listen to the preferences of the owners. They should be transparent about costs and follow the best governance principles. I think that all would agree that no owner in the first building got the lobby they would have created had it been in their own home. However, the process did result in all owners who participated being listened to and the final lobby reflected at least some of the preferences of the greatest number of owners and the process avoided all the unpleasantness experienced in the second building. In any large group it is not possible to arrive at a solution that pleases everyone in the group but following a transparent process that allows for and uses owner input certainly gets closer to that objective. ■

A Personal Matter: Condominum Corporations, Unit Owners and the Right to Privacy BY BRIAN HORLICK, B.COMM., B.CL., LL.B., ACCI HORLICK LEVITT DI LELLA LLP

n a time when information is increasingly easy to disseminate, it is clear that many people place a great emphasis on the protection of their personal privacy. As many condominium unit owners and residents can attest, protecting one’s privacy can be more challenging when one lives in close proximity with many other people. For a condominium corporation, a line must be drawn between respecting the right to privacy of an individual unit owner and protecting the interests of the other unit owners. The question, then, is where the corporation should draw that line.


PIPEDA The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PiPeda”) is federal legislation that contains provisions to protect personal information that is collected, used or disclosed by an organization in the course of commercial activities. That phrase – “commercial activities” – causes some uncertainty with respect to whether PIPEDA applies to condominium corporations. On one hand, a condominium corporation collects personal information in the course of its activities. On the other hand, however, it seems reasonable to suggest that a condominium corporation, as a non-profit entity operating solely for the benefit of its 18


Summer 2011

members (i.e., the unit owners), is not engaged in “commercial activity”. The answer to this question – does PIPEDA apply to condominium corporations? – is not unequivocally clear as of the date of this writing. However, our office’s practice is to advise our condominium clients to act as if PIPEDA does apply to them. (Property management companies are clearly engaged in a commercial activity, so PIPEDA does apply to them.) Broadly speaking, this means that the corporation has certain obligations to protect the personal information that it collects or otherwise obtains. A detailed discussion of the obligations conferred by PIPEDA is beyond the scope of this article. However, it should be noted that exceptions in PIPEDA provide that it does not apply to restrict a corporation from providing personal information that the corporation is obligated to provide by statute. So, for example, personal information that is contained in the records of the corporation (such as an owners’ list) can be disclosed in accordance with the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) despite PIPEDA if the corporation is required by the Act to disclose that information.

Security Cameras Many, if not most, condominium corporations have security cameras on the common elements. The purpose of these cameras, as their name suggests, is to help keep corporation property secure. Fortunately, or unfortunately (depending on one’s perspective), it appears that this name has been interpreted literally with respect to permissible use of these cameras. Specifically, in Shoal Point Strata Council, a 2009 decision, the British Columbia Privacy Commissioner considered a complaint regarding Shoal Point, a strata corporation. In that case, the corporation had used its security cameras to assist with by-law enforcement. This led to a complaint

by several unit owners on the basis that, among other things, the corporation was using the cameras to collect and use personal information for purposes contrary to British Columbia’s privacy legislation (which is analogous to PIPEDA for the purposes of this case). The Privacy Commissioner held that this was an unacceptable practice, as Shoal Point could not justify the use of security cameras (and the video footage captured by same) for by-law enforcement. Shoal Point would have had to demonstrate that by-law violations had become a sufficiently serious problem that video surveillance would have been justified as a means of enforcement. Accordingly, the Privacy Commissioner ordered Shoal Point to cease using the security cameras to enforce the by-laws and further ordered Shoal Point to move certain security cameras away from areas such as the fitness centre and the swimming pool as those cameras did not serve a legitimate security purpose. Finally, the

Privacy Commissioner ordered that Shoal Point’s residents should no longer be permitted to view the security feeds from the external doors and the parkade through their television systems (as had been the case) and that security footage should be viewed only by select security staff and members of the strata council and only in the event of an incident. The Shoal Point decision is very (one might say over-) broad and is not binding on Ontario condominium corporations. However, given the similarities between British Columbia privacy legislation and PIPEDA with respect to this subject matter, it is reasonable to expect that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (which is responsible for enforcing PIPEDA) would be at least influenced by this decision. Accordingly, condominium corporations would be well advised to be wary of using their security cameras for any purpose other than monitoring the security of the building.

Records The Act mandates that all condominium corporations must maintain records and states that unit owners who wish to do so have the right to examine those records and obtain copies of same for all purposes reasonably related to the purposes of the Act. However, there are limits to this right. Specifically, subsections 55(4) and 55(5) of the Act provide that the right to examine records does not apply to a) records relating to employees of the corporation, except for contracts of employment; b) records relating to actual or pending litigation or insurance investigations involving the corporation; or c) records relating to specific units or owners other than the records relating to the unit or owner making the request to examine. These limits provide a framework for condominium corporations to follow when considering what records of the

Summer 2011



corporation should be considered to be private. At times, it may be necessary for the corporation to redact certain of its records in order to protect informa-

(civil claims for wrongful acts) for invasion of privacy. Although this was not a recognized tort (i.e., a tort which the courts had previously acknowl-

‘At times, it may be necessary for the corporation to redact certain of its records in order to protect information relating to a specific unit or owner.’ tion relating to a specific unit or owner; for example, if a particular unit is discussed by the board at a board meeting, all mentions of that unit should be redacted from the minutes of the board meeting before those minutes are provided to any unit owner. Alternatively, a corporation may wish to keep two sets of minutes, one public and one in camera for confidential matters.

Consequences for Breach As suggested above, a unit owner who felt that the condominium corporation had breached his or her right to privacy and/or its obligations under PIPEDA could make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner. However, what if the unit owner decided to sue instead? Over the last several years, a number of people have advanced tort claims

edged as giving rise to a claim), it appeared that the courts were moving toward recognizing invasion of privacy as a stand-alone tort. However, in March 2011, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered its decision in Jones v. Tsige. That case involved two employees at the Bank of Montreal (BMO), Ms. Jones and Ms. Tsige. Ms. Jones did her personal banking at BMO. Ms. Tsige had become romantically involved with Ms. Jones’ ex-husband and had used her position to access Ms. Jones’ personal banking information no fewer than 174 times in a three-year span. Ms. Tsige’s explanation was that she was in a financial dispute with Ms. Jones’ ex-husband (who had become Ms. Tsige’s common law spouse by that time) and she wanted to see if Ms. Jones’ ex-husband was paying her child support. Ms. Tsige’s actions were discovered by BMO,

which reprimanded her and suspended her for five days. Ms. Jones did not discover what Ms. Tsige had done until BMO disciplined Ms. Tsige. As a result of BMO’s arguable involvement in Ms. Tsige’s improper access of Ms. Jones’ personal information, Ms. Jones could have brought a complaint against BMO under PIPEDA to the Privacy Commissioner. Instead, she chose to pursue a claim in tort against Ms. Tsige. The court considered existing case law on this issue and held that there was no tort of invasion of privacy in Ontario. As a result of the court’s decision in Jones, at least as of the time of this writing, condominium corporations should not need to worry about any alleged breach of privacy giving rise to an independent claim outside of any Privacy Commission proceedings.

So, Where is that Line? Obviously, this question is best answered on a case-by-case basis, but if the body of reported decisions is any indication the line is often further toward privacy than one might think. A board of directors is well served to keep two things in mind: one, rely on the advice of experts, such as the corporation’s property manager or lawyer. Two, when in doubt, a corporation should err on the side of privacy. ■

EXPERTS IN CONDOMINIUM LAW 100 Sheppard Avenue East, Suite 870, Toronto ON M2N 6N5



Summer 2011

T. 416.512.7440

F. 416.512.8710

How Does Your Building Perform? The Power of Benchmarking and Establishing an Energy Reduction Plan BY ADRIEN DEVEAU, M.A.SC., P.ENG. & DAVID UREN, P.ENG., HALSALL

any condominiums have completed some level of energy audit which provides a shopping list of potential retrofits they can implement to reduce energy costs. Low cost and/or quick payback measures (i.e. the “low-hanging fruit”) have likely been addressed. So where do you go from here? Your energy audit may still contain a list of high-cost and/or longpayback retrofits, but which ones are right for your building? Which ones make sense? You may also be hearing about newer approaches such as RetroCommissioning, or newer technologies (LED lights, solar Pv panels, etc.) and asking yourself if you are missing out on something. The answer to these really lies in current performance and how you stack up against the market.


Defining the Opportunities The first step toward reducing building energy use is understanding where and why energy is being consumed. Regardless of a building’s design or occupancy, energy efficiency is impacted by: • Building Systems: the type and efficiency of the equipment installed (boilers, chillers, lights, fans, pumps, building envelope, etc.);

• Building Operations: how that equipment is operated and controlled; and • Occupant Behaviour: how occupants use the building (including their own equipment).

Building Systems Upgrading or retrofitting building equipment is the focus of most building energy conservation strategies. Examples include replacing boilers with higher efficiency models, replacing T12 fluorescent lamps with T8 types, or installing variable speed drives on motors.

Energy Audits evaluate whether energy saving opportunities exist in upgrading or retrofitting existing building systems. Most condominiums have likely performed some level of audit by now. Depending on the level of audit completed, you may be missing out on the other pieces of the pie.

Building Operations How a building is operated and maintained has a big impact on how much energy is used. Normally, the focus for building operations is to minimize occupant comfort issues and complaints and resolve issues quickly. As a result,

Summer 2011



“quick fixes” are often implemented without fully considering the energy impact or original building design and over time the building falls “out-oftune”. This can also occur when buildings do not have a full-time operator or building automation system that monitors the buildings, so the maintenance contractor or superintendent is often relied upon to decide how to adjust the building operations even though they may not understand the intent of the original design. A simple analogy is the maintenance and operation of a car. If the car isn’t regularly “tuned-up”, it will not run efficiently, even if it is a fuel-efficient car. If the car is driven hard when it doesn’t need to be, it will waste more fuel. This is exactly what is happening at many buildings. Reviewing building operations to check if the building is being operated as



Summer 2011

designed and to optimize performance is referred to as Retro-Commissioning (some refer to this as Re-Commissioning). Retro-commissioning is fairly new in the marketplace but is quickly being recognized as the best tool to uncover operating flaws and hidden energy efficiency opportunities.

Occupant Behaviour The impact of occupant behaviour on a building’s energy pie is typically not addressed during efforts to reduce energy use. It is often seen as too complicated or not within property management’s control. However, occupant behaviour has an enormous effect on a condominium’s energy consumption as occupants typically account for well over 50% of the electricity use. In the condominium market occupant behaviour is further complicated by the fact that most buildings do not have

individual suite electricity meters. This can lead to a ‘tragedy of the commons’ effect, where each occupant can feel the need to ‘use their fair share’. Although sub-metered buildings typically consume less energy (as there is greater incentive for individuals to reduce energy use), rare is the case where further occupant-saving opportunities do not exist. Examples of potential savings include educating occupants about the benefits of: • Replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents (CFLs) • Replacing appliances with Energy Star rated appliances (new refrigerators can consume half the energy of those produced in the late 1990s and 75 percent less than those from the late 1970s). • Setting thermostats lower in the winter and higher in the summer and

using programmable thermostats. • Addressing ‘phantom power’ loads – many of today’s electronics consume power even when they are turned off; using power bars can help. Organizing and hosting seminars, workshops and energy committees can help spread these messages. We are seeing occupants increasingly willing (and wanting) to engage in energy conservation, whether to save money or to help combat climate change.

Developing an Energy Reduction Plan To develop an energy reduction plan that cost effectively achieves best-inclass energy performance, follow these steps: Step 1 - Benchmarking: Is your building a poor, average, or best-in-class energy performer? Many condominium boards and property managers are not quite sure. Benchmarking involves comparing your building’s performance to that of similar buildings. Knowing where your building stands relative to the best performers is the critical first step The power of benchmarking is best explained with a simple anecdote: Picture two similar homes with similar

families on a typical street; while chatting one day, Neighbour A learns that Neighbour B’s utility bills are half of what theirs are. These two folks have just benchmarked their home’s energy performance – and almost assuredly, Neighbour A’s next step will be to find out just what Neighbour B is doing to save this much energy and money. This exact concept should be applied to your building to learn how you stack up. In addition to whole building benchmarking, an end-use breakdown of energy use within a building can be compared to other buildings, industry averages and design standards to determine if any end-uses are outside the norm. This can help determine where to focus your evaluations and retrofit efforts. The figure on page 25 shows a comparison of electricity consumption among similar buildings. The electricity has been broken down into baseline consumption (ongoing use of pumps, motors, plug loads and lights) and seasonal increases (additional loads due to responses to seasonal needs). Building B has the lowest baseline electricity use, possibly due to efficient equipment/operation but has a higher seasonal increase than the other three buildings. From the utility data you can determine when this increase is occurring (winter or summer months) and then focus your investigation on Continued on page 25

Summer 2011



focused review of these buildings to determine why they are above the norm. The baseline will also allow you to identify the good performers, which you can use to evaluate what it is about these buildings makes them more efficient and then use this info to improve performance at the other buildings.

trying to determine what equipment specifically comes on during this time. This could be tenant related (portable air conditioning units or fans) or base building related (cooling tower motors/pumps). Another example of systems level

benchmarking is to focus on natural gas consumption in a portfolio of buildings. Your local utility company can easily consolidate the natural gas consumption from numerous buildings so that you can establish a baseline (or average). Using this baseline you can pinpoint the heavy consumers and start a

Step 2 – Develop a List of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs): Use Retro-Commissioning, Energy Audits, Preliminary or Detailed Engineering Studies and Occupant Engagement as described above to identify energy -saving opportunities. Update your benchmarking assessment to account for the estimated energy savings of the various ECMs to determine which combination(s) of measures can create a bestin-class building. This becomes the framework for your energy reduction plan. Continued on page 27

Summer 2011



Once you have set a target, implement the ECMs, and monitor performance on an ongoing basis to confirm that expected energy savings are realized. Revise your game plan (and the ECMs required) based on the actual performance achieved.

Step 3 – Set a Target and Implement Your Game Plan: Through Steps 1 and 2 an energy intensity target can be set based on where you would like to see your building positioned within the marketplace. Mandatory building energy labeling is likely to become a reali-

ty in the years to come, so poor-performing buildings should take steps to ensure they don’t lose value. Also, what is considered average energy intensity today will become lower over time as building energy performance continues to improve.

Step 4 – Continuous Improvement: What gets measured, gets improved. Produce quarterly energy reports that show actual consumption compared to targets and benchmarks to allow the Board/Property Management company to address building changes that result in unforeseen negative impacts on energy and to manage potential risks related to future building labeling initiatives and energy cost increases. ■

Summer 2011




CCI Toronto is thrilled to announce that Quantum 2 North (TSCC #1965) has been selected as the fourth quarter finalist of the annual Condo of the Year Award. Congratulations are extended to TSCC #1965! Further details on this contest may be found on the CCI-T website at The 2010-2011 annual grand prize winner will be selected from amongst the four quarter finalists in the late summer of 2011 and will be announced at the CCI Toronto Annual General Meeting in the Fall of 2011.

Blue Beacon for Green Living

hen you fly over Toronto at night you’re sure to notice Quantum 2 North (Q2N), Fourth Quarter Finalist for the CCI-Toronto Condo of the Year award.


The tallest building at Yonge and Eglinton is capped by a band of blue lights that shines like a beacon. TSCC 1965 Director Karen Quong says “I love that I can see my home from so far away.” She also loves that her home made the CCI finals. “At first we were really surprised to hear we made quarter finalist,” says Karen, “because we’re so new. But it really makes sense. Q2N, with its LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Gold certification and green initiatives is leading the way for other condos.” 28


Summer 2011

Off to a fast start The 54-storey landmark Q2N set a lofty standard for other condominium corporations from day one.

city landmarks including the Eaton Centre, designed the stunning buildings.

In September 2008 residents started moving in and, in an efficiency that has saved owners thousands of dollars, the building was registered the next month and turned over to the board a short two months later on December 9th. According to Q2N General Manager Frank Puchiele of Minto Management Limited, “quickly turning over a condominium to a board, is a huge benefit to residents.” Another huge financial benefit: Q2N’s green initiatives. After its first year of operation through efficient design and resident participation, MintoMidtown ―which includes Q2N and its sister tower, Quantum 2 South―saw exceptional savings in energy consumption. Homeowner costs for energy and water were reduced on average $90/month. Collectively, these savings amount to over $1million.1 Also as a result of its green initiatives, in May 2009 MintoMidtown became only the second high-rise condo community in Toronto to be certified LEED and the first at the Gold level2. Now, two years later, only three more highrise condos have been certified, a testament to MintoMidtown’s accomplishment.

Sculpture in the courtyard

At the base of Q2N’s soaring tower is a lobby panelled floor to ceiling in solid walnut slats. It brings to mind the fabulous Galleria Italia at the Art Gallery of Ontario. A two-way fireplace and stylish seating area make it as inviting as it is beautiful.

The rest of the building is just as spectacular, with finely-crafted facilities such as a movie screening room, lap pool and saunas, extensive fitness facilities, fully equipped business centre, and a massage therapy room. Out on the wrap-around common area terraces you will find a meditation patio, an outdoor kitchen with professional-grade barbecues and several cozy seating areas, including one with a two-way fireplace. In this fast-paced midtown section of the city, an area that reflects Toronto’s diverse demographics, the complex’s neighbours especially love the very welcoming street-level Ann Johnston Courtyard which is perfect for eating lunch with co-workers or writing the next chapter of that Great Canadian Novel you’ve been working on. The courtyard, which features a sculpture and chairs designed by Q2N resident and artist Lilly Otasevic, was named after one of Toronto’s longest-serving City councillors whose support was instrumental in gaining City approval for the development.

“The envy of midtown Toronto” “Our complex is the envy of midtown Toronto” – a sweeping statement but take one look at Q2N and it’s not hard to believe Board Member Karen Quong’s words.

Lounges at Q2N

MintoMidtown was conceived by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill of Chicago, the firm responsible for the Sears Tower and John Hancock Building in Chicago and Pearson International Airport’s new Terminal 1. Toronto firm zeidler Architects, the creative powerhouse behind numerous

Summer 2011



Something for everyone Residents’ needs and demographics are constantly changing. In 2008 when residents started moving in, quite a few were first-time buyers. Others were people who moved in as renters but liked Q2N so much they have since purchased a condo there. Many of the young couples are now having babies and, lately, several resale condos have been purchased by empty-nesters transitioning from homes. As with any effective board, Q2N has done a wonderful job of anticipating change and keeping ahead of the curve

A Monopoly Tournament and Summer BBQ are just a few of the many events organized by the Social Committee.

Trail. It’s a trail that runs across midtown, and connects to other trails in the city – You can walk south to the lake if you wanted to! I walk the trail every weekend.”

From the very outset they have focused on communication, diversity and accountability. by fostering resident-organized events like the Mix-and-Mingles, Summer BBQ and their Winter Gala which was attended by more than 200 residents. The social committee has also organized off-site events such as pub nights and outings to the Absolute Comedy Club, Toronto Blue Jay games as well as a Monopoly Tournament. All the events are well-attended as are the completely spontaneous condo-hopping nights when residents have two or three gatherings―all within the complex―to choose from. Its a home of neighbours who quickly become friends. But it wasn’t the pub nights or the Winter Gala that convinced prospective buyers, “the area sold the place”, Karen says. Q2N Assiatant Property Manager Mirella Kovach points out that “One of the advantages of living at Yonge and Eglinton is that it doesn’t have the urban jungle feel of downtown.” Karen adds, “Within steps, we have shops, boutiques, tons of restaurants, clubs and all the services you could ask for. Not only that, but Quantum2North is so close to the Kay Gardner Beltline 30


Summer 2011

A big welcome mat The Yonge and Eglinton business community has been especially welcoming to the residents of Q2N. At their first Summer BBQ, attended by approximately 500 residents from both towers, The Keg Steakhouse provided their restaurant-quality burgers at a subsidized cost, and pre-cooked hundreds of burgers to speed up service to residents. Starbucks joined in by serving complimentary summer-perfect iced tea. While The Keg and Starbucks occupy Quantum2North’s store front retail space, the corporation opted to further support local businesses by having the salads catered by the Pickle Barrel, and purchasing ice cream treats at the local Metro grocery store. “Support from local merchants was phenomenal,” enthuses Mirella, who points out that in addition to the flood of local busi-

nesses offering discounts. Bicycles were purchased to start the residents’ bicycle sharing program. As well, after sucessful lobbeying the City installed a traffic light at the entrance to the property, which means the subway station is only 35 steps away from the lobby.

Exceptional management and oversight It’s no wonder that Q2N and its sister tower were recently featured in the

L-R: Mirella Kovach, Frank Puchiele and Karen Quong.

National Post Homes section. The City praised it too: “The southeast quadrant (of the Yonge-Eglinton Centre) has been transformed with the construction of the ‘Minto Midtown’ project... This has improved the public realm along this stretch of Yonge Street.”3 Courtyard chairs designed by resident Lilly Otasevic.

Much of the credit for Q2N’s celebrity goes to the Board which firmly believes, in Frank’s words, that, “Success here is the collaboration of management and Board and transparency”. The members of the Board are Ken Sloan (Chair), Bernard Ornstein, Diana White, Jennifer O'Brien and Karen Quong. The composition of the board reflects the building’s population, a mosaic of young urban professionals and people transitioning from houses. The job of managing the 556-suite tower is deftly handled by Frank, Mirella, six office staff, and four concierges. Repairs and cleaning are contracted out. “We are much more than a condo complex, we are very much a community,” says Mirella. The Board and management place community spirit as a high priority because they recognize that only a strong sense of community can ensure the health and happiness of the residents. From the very outset they have focused on communication, diversity and accountability. Of course, because many of the residents are first-time condo owners, they didn’t know many of the protocols surrounding condo living. “That’s the importance of great property management, they give homeowners great direction,” says Karen. The Building Resident Advisory Group (BRAG) helps to maintain two-way communication between management and residents, as does Q2N’s Facebook page and its website (, where residents can keep track of what’s going on and even place an online service request that goes directly to property management. The online system, which

Two-way fireplace on the Terrace.

is monitored by a board member, fosters accountability and gives management an overview of building issues. Three of management’s current projects are: 1) developing a “Did you know” list; 2) creating a resident’s package; and, 3) reviewing regulations and security to create improvements. Frank points out, “We’re going through a learning curve concerning the corporation rules and regulations. Some of them are far too general, but it’s the same with any new condo.”

Leading in LEED Q2N received its LEED Gold certification on the strength of its green-focused design, features such as: roughed-in wet-waste chutes on every floor; the courtyard fountain and the complex’s grass irrigation, which run on recovered rain water; in-suite dual flush toilets; master off-on switch and heat recovery unit in every suite; and motion-activated corridor and stairwell lights. These are all initiatives that not only work to save our planet but have the added benefit of lowering the building’s common element fees.

“We have good participation in our organic waste program”, says Frank, who points out that Q2N’s hazardous and e-waste program was successful from the very beginning. Each suite is billed separately for water and hydro, fostering conservation and accountability for those two difficult-to-control budget line items.

The future Q2N’s success at incorporating green building systems and sustainability while fostering community spirit and effective management has set a standard for all condos―new and existing―to strive for. The residents’ strong sense of neighbourhood will ensure that Q2N remains a beacon, shining brightly to guide and inspire Canada’s condominium industry. 1 Minto press release ‘Minto Midtown - Largest LEED® Gold Certified Condominium in North America’, dated December 17, 2009. 2 ‘LEED Certified Projects in Canada’, published by Canada Green Building Council, April 14, 2011. 3 ‘City-Initiated Official Plan and zoning Bylaw Amendments, Yonge-Eglinton Centre Focused Review – Final Report’ published January 5, 2009. ■

Summer 2011



Member News

CCI-Toronto Networking Dinner Recap CCI Toronto held a Networking Dinner for Condo Board members on March 30th, 2011 at the Novotel North York Hotel. A new format for the dinner was presented at this event and the feedback was unanimously favourable. Participants at each dinner table were joined by a legal expert, who provided free legal responses to their numerous questions. CCI would like to thank our legal experts: Armand Conant (Heenan Blaikie, LLP), Patricia Elia (Elia & Associates Professional Corporation Barristers & Solicitors), Jonathon Fine (Fine & Deo, Barristers & Solicitors), Chris Jaglowitz (Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP) as well as the Dinner Moderator, Bob Girard (Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP) for their participation. Discussions at each table were lively and the topics discussed were varied. Human rights issues seemed to be a recurring topic throughout the evening but other topics also included: insurance claims relating to water damage, renovations, shared facilities, employment issues, accessibility, privacy issues, defamation, and liability issues arising from volunteer resident ‘contractors’ performing work within units. When participants were asked in a follow up survey what the most valuable part of the evening was, here is what they had to say: • “The opportunity to interact with other board members and to receive opinions from experts on questions relevant to each of us”. • “Getting advice from the lawyers and hearing about problems and solutions at other condos”. • “Ability to explore real life issues in discussion format. Not restricted to the standard Q and A for presentations”. • “Flexibility to determine topics for discussion. Opportunity to have discussion with BOD members of other condos”. And…when we asked for general overall comments, here is what they had to say: • “To receive 3 hours of professional legal advice (on topics raised by attendees) from four condo experts for $40 plus HST is a huge bargain. I am surprised that you did not have more attendees. Once again CCI – WELL DONE!” • “This was delightful. We have to somehow make more condo corps aware of the benefits of membership and participation”. 32


Summer 2011

From left to right: Armand Conant, Bob Girard, Chris Jaglowitz, Patricia Elia, and Jonathon Fine.

• “No improvements required. The session was very informative and beneficial. Being able to have the many discussions with the different lawyers gave us valuable knowledge in the different areas of condo law. The interactive format was a great idea and allowed board members to focus on specific condo legal issues. To me, this should be mandatory for all board members and we will be suggesting this to our board. Looking forward to upcoming CCI events. The next CCI Networking Dinner will take place on Tuesday, June 21st at the Novotel North York hotel to focus on the theme of Health and Safety – What Directors Need to Know. For further information or to register, visit the CCI website at: ■

Member News

Tarion Appointment We are pleased to advise that Mario Deo, vice President of CCI and editor of the CondoVoice Magazine, has been appointed to the Tarion Consumer Advisory Council. The council, made up of recognized consumer advocates, industry leaders who have new home buyers as clients, and actual new home buyers, will provide ongoing advice to Tarion on consumer policy matters. The council will offer external expertise to Tarion's decision making processes and will act as a voice for the homebuyer's perspective on proposed Tarion policy changes. On behalf of CCI, congratulations are extended to Mario on his appointment.

ACCI Member Profile

KIM COULTER, B.TECH. (ARCH.SC.), ACCI, FCCI For the past 33 years, Kim’s expertise has been focused on the evaluation and problem correction of multi-unit residential, commercial, institutional and recreational properties throughout North America. This has ranged from building envelope performance testing on low energy housing in the Canadian Arctic to building condition assessments of five star luxury resorts in Florida. With this diverse understanding of the performance of building claddings, in 1993 Kim was appointed by the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes to sit as a member on Part 5 of the National Building Code of Canada Standing Committee on Environmental Separation. This section of the code deals with building envelope design as it applies to buildings other than single family housing. He was a committee member until 2008. In 1997 Kim established Coulter Building Consultants Ltd., Consulting Engineers & Building Scientists, with a specific focus on condominium engineering. In 1999 he was invited to become a board member of the Golden Horseshoe Chapter of CCI and two years later became its Board President until 2009, when he became Board Chair. Currently, Kim sits on the CCI National Executive Board, and is also a professional member of the CCI Toronto & Area Chapter. He received his ACCI designation in 2001 and FCCI in 2007. He is a featured writer for CCI and ACMO and has spoken at numerous condominium and building science related conferences and seminars across Canada. In his spare time he serves as Board President of the condominium corporation where he lives, and gets to experience firsthand the unique challenges and rewards that one often reads about in the CondoVoice. ■

Summer 2011





Summer 2011

Member News

Communicating the Benefits of your Membership! BY VIC PERSAUD, BA CHAIR, CCI-T MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE It has been another successful year for CCI Toronto which now represents over 120,000 units. Our strong membership can be attributed to your continuous support of CCI Toronto and the efforts of our Membership Committee to focus on maintaining current members and attracting new members. Some of the well known benefits of your membership include: ■

ed the following initiatives to provide increased benefits to our members: ■

Educational discounts up to 30% on Courses, Events and Networking Dinners A dedicated Legislative Legislative and Government Relations Committee that is constantly working with various levels of government to bring condominium issues to the forefront

Complimentary quarterly publications of the Condo voice magazine and the annual Professional Services and Trades Directory The opportunity to appoint a CCI Liaison who will receive regular updates on CCI Toronto news and events

Networking opportunities with industry leaders at CCI courses and seminars Networking opportunities with other condo board members at dinner events set up exclusively for boards to discuss common issues and challenges Referrals to experts

Over the past few years the Membership Committee has also implement-

Condo of the Year Award – Each year we accept entries from condominiums that feel their condominium is an exceptional place to live for any number of reasons including its social fabric, energy initiatives, forward-thinkingness or other success stories. The winner of this contest receives a customized street sign valued at $5,000. Ambassador Program – We truly value those individuals/ambassadors who take it upon themselves to refer condominiums to CCI Toronto and reward these individuals and/or companies each year at our AGM. These individuals receive tangible rewards including CCI vouchers up to $500 and advertising opportunities for Professionals and Trades. CCI Toronto Calendar – Each year we distribute our CCI Calendar which includes important dates for CCI Toronto Courses and our Annual Conference. Complimentary CCI Toronto Window Sticker – This is your opportunity to proudly display to your residents, visitors, or clients that you are a member of the largest non-profit condominium association in Canada representing the interests of condominiums, professionals and trades in this industry.

For more information on any of the above benefits please feel free to contact the CCI Toronto office at 416-4916216. CCI Toronto is only a chapter of CCI National, which also has its own Membership Committee. Over the past year, the CCI National Membership Committee has requested that all CCI Chapter Membership Chairs participate in these meetings; this will allow CCI Chapters across the country to share ideas on how to increase and maintain their membership. We hope that through these meetings we will learn from the other chapters about some of the benefits they are offering to their members, in hopes that we can offer the same. Lastly, but most importantly, we not only want to communicate to you in this article, we want to encourage you to communicate to us. In the past few years we have sent out surveys to all of our new members and we have also sent out a general membership survey to our entire membership. The results of these surveys were excellent and have led us to set a goal to send out both new member and general member surveys on an annual basis so that we can give you the opportunity to provide your feedback on CCI Toronto. We look forward to your responses in the next survey to be sent out in early fall of 2011. ■

Summer 2011





Summer 2011

Member News Bulletin

CCI-T, ACMO, Submit Proposed Changes to Ontario Condominium Act The Canadian Condominium Institute, Toronto and Area Chapter (CCI-T), and the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario (ACMO) submitted a joint legislative brief containing recommended changes to the Ontario Condominium Act, 1998 to Minister of Consumer Services John Gerretsen in late May. Citing the explosive growth in the condominium market since the Act was originally drafted, the Brief addresses areas the two organizations feel need amendment in five major categories: owners’ issues; governance; financial; repair and maintenance; and reserve funds and reserve fund studies. Some of the key recommendations are:

Owners’ Issues The Brief recognizes the need to find innovative mechanisms to better and more cost effectively deal with disputes between unit owners and condominium corporations. It recommends looking at such possibilities as establishing an Ombudsman’s Office, or a Tribunal or other administrative body to deal with certain types of disputes, the recognition of precedents set by previous similar dispute resolutions, and limitations to the availability of the oppression remedy when other procedures are being pursued. The Brief also makes recommendations regarding a corporation’s ability to recover enforcement costs from a unit owner in breach of the Act, declaration and rules, and recovery of insurance deductibles relating to owner-caused damage to other units and common elements.

Governance The Brief recommends elimination of

the owner-occupied elected director’s position, as it is now rarely relevant and both confusing and adding unnecessary complexity to elections. It also recommends mandatory training for new condominium Board members and restructuring proxy provisions to permit proxy holders to vote for Board candidates nominated from the floor at an owners’ meeting.

Financial The Brief recommended that recreational units, guest suites, on-site management offices and similar property be exempt from municipal taxation as they are already factored into the assessed values of individual units. The Brief also addresses the issue of property tax inequality between condominiums and single residences through the creation of two new property assessment classifications – one each for high rises and townhomes. It recommends expansion of the Ontario New Home Warranty Plan to cover condo conversions or legislative provision for comparable insurance to be provided by the developer; greater disclosure of costs in the first year budgets prepared by developers and more accountability for the first year’s budgetary shortfalls and collection thereof from developers.

owner’s obligation to repair and maintain the property, if the replacement is necessitated by wear and tear.

Reserve Funds and Reserve Fund Studies The Brief recommended that replacement of any common element or asset be covered by the reserve fund, and that “repairs” paid out of the reserve fund be limited to “major” repairs only; other repairs are normal operating expenses of the corporation. It suggested that developers be required to conduct an initial reserve fund study based on architectural and technical drawings and plans, and recommended that the minimum reserve fund contribution in a corporation’s first year budget be increased to 20%. It also recommended recognizing replacement of components of the building that are truly for environmental and energy consumption purposes be allowed to be paid from the reserve fund and would not trigger the notice to owners provisions of the Act. Finally, it recommended the terms “adequate” and “sufficient” as they relate to reserve funds be defined in the Act and that a common approach, known as “inflation matched”, be used to determine the level of reserve fund contributions.

Repair and Maintenance The Brief identified major issues regarding repair and maintenance. It recommended that the repair and replacement of common elements such as balconies and windows be strictly funded by the reserve fund and not included in an

For more information on the legal brief, please visit: and for the Executive Summary: ExecSummary.pdf ■

Summer 2011



Member News

Legislative Update On May 18, the Ontario Legislature passed Bill 160, the Occupational Health and Safety Statute Law Amendment Act. This Act, a response to the Dean Report (the Expert Panel on Health and Safety, which submitted its report in April 2010), focuses on accident prevention and transfers responsibility for this from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board to the Ministry of Labour under the guidance of the Chief Prevention Officer, a newly established position within the Ministry. The Act's provisions will apply to all provincially regulated employers, including condominiums and their property managers. The aim of the new Act is to enhance the Internal Responsibility System; this gives organizations the primary responsibility for accident prevention. To encourage this, the Act mandates training and certification for at least two members of each employer's Joint Health and Safety Committee (affecting employers with 20 or more employees) and, for the first time, requires training for all Health and Safety Representatives (affecting employers with 6 to 19 employees). The Act is expected to receive Royal Assent shortly, and the Ministry is developing regulations to support it. These regulations will identify the policy framework for specifying the type, content, and duration of the training required under the Act. Once these have been developed, the Act will be implemented. If the Ministry follows past practices, employers will likely have 12 months after implementation to comply with the training requirements.



Summer 2011

Membership Committee:

Special Projects Committee:

Chair: vic Persaud Members: Henry Jansen, Doug King, Lavonne McCumberEals, Julian McNabb and Bill Thompson

Chair: Bob Girard Members: Lisa Kay, Doug McKenzie and vic Persaud

As a follow up to the feedback in the report from a professional website consulting firm, changes have now been made to the CCI Toronto website with the aim to make the site more visible within the condominium community. Ongoing changes will continue to be forthcoming, but if you have not visited our site lately, please visit Members should watch for a general membership survey coming in the fall of 2011 via email. In an effort to better understand the needs of members, the Committee is developing a short but comprehensive survey for your feedback. Please take a few short moments to complete this confidential survey when it arrives in your email inbox. Highlights of the survey responses will be shared in a future issue of the Condovoice. Remember, June is CCI-T membership renewal month – watch for your renewal notice coming within the next few weeks. Your continued membership provides CCI with a strong voice when representing the condominium industry!

Education Committee: Chair: John Warren Members: Pamela Boyce, Robert Buckler, Bob Girard, Jeff Jeffcoatt, Scott Newhouse, Michael Pascu, Donna Swanson, Bill Thompson and Sally Thompson The CCI Toronto Education Committee is pleased to announce that the Condo 101 course material has been reviewed and updated and will be available to those taking our June 2nd course. Our sincere thanks goes out to John Warren, Gina Cody, Mario Deo, Richard Pearlstein, Peter Harris, Henry Jansen, Micheal Gwynne and Bob Girard for the countless volunteer hours they have put forth to re-write and review this course material. A very successful meeting between CCI Toronto and TREB recently took place to discuss possible future joint educational opportunities between these two organizations. Further information will be provided in the next Committee report, as details become available.

The Special Projects Committee has joined forces with CCIToronto’s newest Committee, the Health and Safety Committee (headed by Jeff Jeffcoatt and Lisa Kay) to develop a presentation for the next Networking Dinner. This dinner will take place on Tuesday June 21st, 2011 at the Novotel North York Hotel and will feature a theme of Health and Safety. This session will be geared to what Directors need to know with respect to Health and Safety legislation and will be presented by John Aird, Manager - Workplace Safety & Prevention Services, Paul Hartford, Health and Safety Consultant - Workplace Safety & Prevention Services and Jeremy Warning, Lawyer - Heenan Blaikie LLP. For further information, or to register, please visit the CCI Toronto website at:

Legislative Committee: Chair: Member:

Armand Conant Brian Horlick

The Legislative Committee is thrilled to announce that the CCI-T/ACMO Legislative Brief containing recommendations to update the Condominium Act, 1998 has now been submitted to the Ontario Government. This project has been years in the making, and includes input from all sectors of the industry, including unit owners, property managers, lawyers, auditors, engineers, developers and others. This document was presented to Ministry of Consumer & Business Services officials in late May 2011 and the Committee is hopeful that the need for change to the Act will be highlighted within party platforms for the upcoming Fall provincial elections. A copy of the Brief can now be found on the CCI website at:

Summer 2011



CCI-T Committee Update Cont’d.

Public Relations Committee: Chair: Julian McNabb Members: Gordon Chong, Lisa Kay, and Mario Deo In addition to their ongoing work to oversee the production of the quarterly Condovoice magazine, the Public Relations Committee has been meeting to develop a long-range comprehensive plan to bring CCI to the forefront of the public eye. This plan may involve the future use of Social Media, retaining a Public Relations Consultant as well as the development of ongoing budget requirements to fund this long-range plan.

be provided to voters in future publications from both CCI-T and ACMO.

Conference Committee: Chair: Bill Thompson Members: Chris Antipas, Mario Deo, Brian Horlick, Lisa Kay, Dean McCabe, Karen Reynolds, Robert Thackeray and John Warren

Co-Chairs: Armand Conant and Dean McCabe Members: Brian Horlick, Chris Antipas and Gordon Chong

Planning for the 2011 CCI-T/ACMO Condominium Conference: Living in Balance is in full swing and members can look forward to another two days of tremendous educational and networking opportunities on Friday November 4th and Saturday November 5th, 2011. The move to a new venue – the Toronto Congress Centre was made for the coming year to accommodate the exceptional growth this annual event continues to see.

The Government Relations Committee is gearing up for a busy few months in preparation for the Fall 2011 Provincial Elections. The committee is in the process of developing several key questions relating to condominiums to pose to every provincial candidate. These questions will likely revolve around the issues of reopening the Condo Act, Fair Municipal Taxation for condominiums and the licensing of Condominium Managers. Responses to these questions will

The trade show component of the show has been expanded to allow for 134 booths and is already over 80% sold out. Interested companies are encouraged to visit the conference website at or to contact Alison Nash at (416) 491-6216 Ext 253 at their earliest convenience to ensure a booth location. Sponsorship opportunities are still available and are an excellent means to provide business exposure at this premiere annual event! ■

Government Relations Committee:



Summer 2011


“Your condominium deserves personal attention and service.”

Over 26 years experience. We provide Professional Condominium Property Management with attention to detail. Expect Superior Service and a commitment to quality property management. At Summa we take pride in managing your property. 647-341-7990

When experience and quality counts!



Summer 2011

New Members

CCI-Toronto Welcomes the Following New Members Corporate Members

Individual Members

Peterborough Standard Condo Corp # 0077

B. Lang

PCC # 0579

Professional Members

PSCC # 0866 TSCC # 1502 TSCC # 1754 TSCC # 2055 TSCC # 2078 TSCC # 2117

Kara Russell Fine & Deo Barristers & Solicitors Horatio Fung Pal/Max Property Management Inc.

TSCC # 2121 TSCC # 2127

New Trade Members

TSCC # 2128

Altus Group Limited Melissa Woods

YRSCC # 1186

Combined Building Services Ltd. Refitness Inc. Monica Celenza Peter Zambito Contrast Heating and Air Conditioning Ltd. Joshua Adamson

Team Solutions Robert Musso

David Hyde and Associates David Hyde

The Grounds Guys Landscape Management Inc. Micheal McLaughlin

Enwise Home Services Inc. Nishant Shah

Triple J. Contracting Inc. Dave Gerow

Hudson Restoration Inc. Steve Hudson

True North Elevator Service Inc. Adam Plenderleith

Metro Jet Wash Corp. Leslie DiCarli

Wilkinson Chutes Canada Doug King

Puroclean Emergency Services, Oakville/Mississauga Joel Nelson

Summer 2011





Summer 2011


21 DAYS BEFORE • cut off date for candidates running for the Board • candidates must notify the condominium corporation in writing • an owner cannot be a director if a lien has been registered and not cleared within 90 days of registration

20 DAYS BEFORE • date to determine the names on owners’ register for service 18 days before • cut off date for owner-occupied candidates • candidates must notify the condominium corporation in writing • at least one position on the board must be reserved if at least 15% of the units are owner-occupied Note: Owner-occupied units are units that are used for a residential purpose and have not been leased within 60 days, as noted in the condominium corporation’s records, from the date the notice is sent.

17 DAYS BEFORE • Notice must be sent the notice must - be in writing - list all the candidates and their addresses - list owner-occupied candidates and statement that one position shall be reserved and that only owners-occupied units can vote addresses - include proxy form addresses - specify date, time, place of meeting

vided a written request not to or address for service is different in the corporation’s records).

4 DAYS BEFORE • cut off date for mortgagee’s notice of intention to vote

AGM When to be held: • new condominium corporations within 3 months of registration, thereafter as below

• detail business to be dealt with (for example, approval of previous AGM minutes)

• existing condominiums - within 6 months of condominium corporation fiscal year end

• include copies of proposed changes to bylaws, rules and/or agreements

Note: owner cannot vote if they are in arrears for more than 30 days at the time of meeting.

• include board approved audited financial statements, auditors report and any other financial information required by your bylaws If a matter is not disclosed in the notice, no vote can be taken on it but it may be discussed. Notice may be delivered personally, prepaid mail, via fax/email (if agreed to by owner) or owner’s mailbox (unless owner has pro-

10 DAYS AFTER • consent in writing, to act as a director elected but not present at meeting

90 DAYS AFTER • proxies may be destroyed unless there is a dispute ■ Summer 2011



CLOTHES DRYER FIRE PREVENTION “Serving the Condominium Community Since 1996” PROVIDING: • CLOTHES DRYER AND EXHAUST SYSTEM CLEANING as prescribed by the Fire Marshal and all Appliance Manufacturers • In suite and common area exhaust and ventilation ductwork cleaning • Fan coil preventative maintenance service • Washing machine flood prevention • Secondary dryer lint box conversions “Providing the most organized, cost effective service programs available”

Visit our website at to learn why clothes dryer fire prevention is required.

Dennis Monk: (647) 236-5643 Randy Mason: (647) 239-8787 Office: (905) 761-1761 Email:



Summer 2011


he number of fire fatalities in Canada may be decreasing but there are still far too many firerelated deaths occurring in homes. Smoke alarms, requirements for residential sprinklers, as well as the importance placed on educating the public about fire safety have helped, but in a way, this makes the deaths that do occur so much more painful to bear, because for the most part they are preventable. As educated as we are (or think we are) about fire safety, we are still not doing the simplest things, like fire prevention and fire safety planning, to keep ourselves safe in our homes.


If you call a multi-unit or multi-storey apartment or condominium “home”, what fire safety measures should be taken and whose responsibility is it to do this? If you own or manage such a property, what are your obligations and how can you ensure the safety of those living in your building? Let’s start with the “have to’s”. All provinces in Canada have legislation in place to ensure a minimum standard for life safety in buildings. The requirements governing fire safety and emergency planning for existing buildings are typically contained within the province’s (or some cases, the municipality’s) Fire Code. The criteria for determining whether or not a Fire Safety Plan (Plan) is required are typically contained within the Fire Code’s “Emergency Planning” section (e.g. 2007 Ontario Fire Code, Division B, Section 2.8). In most provinces, any building

required to have a fire alarm system is required also to have a Plan, regardless of the building’s use. In Ontario, the triggers are building use, building height, and/or occupant load. As it pertains specifically to residential use, a building with an occupant load of more than 10 requires a Plan. Occupant load is defined as the number of persons for which a building or part thereof is designed. The Fire Code assumes two

tion about the use of the building (e.g. residential, industrial, persons with physical disabilities), will serve to assist emergency responders in formulating their approaches to the situation. It is important to note that the act of putting together a Plan can reap benefits aside from those mentioned above. It is quite common that the exercise of going through the building (whether it

‘Once a Plan has been completed it must not be left to gather dust on a shelf.’ persons per bedroom; therefore, a residential building with more than five bedrooms would be considered to have an occupant load exceeding 10, requiring a Plan to be prepared. If the building is over four storeys in height (including the basement), a Plan is required regardless of the occupant load.

is the owner or staff or a contractor hired for the purpose of the writing the Plan) will reveal deficiencies or other life safety concerns that would not have otherwise been discovered. In addition, talking about planning and formulating procedures brings about a greater awareness of fire safety and demonstrates to others that it is a priority.

A Plan serves a couple of purposes. First, the Plan must provide instructions to the building staff and building occupants on how to prevent fires, how to ensure their building’s fire protection and life safety systems are properly maintained and how to react in fire emergencies to preserve life safety.

Once a Plan has been completed it must not be left to gather dust on a shelf. In some cases the Plan will have to be approved by the local authority having jurisdiction (typically the Fire Department). Even in jurisdictions where submission for approval is not a requirement (i.e. provinces that have adopted the National Fire Code model) it is a good idea to submit the Plan to the Fire Department. They may choose to make comments on the adequacy of the Plan or not, but either way you will have demonstrated your compliance with the requirement.

Second, the Plan must contain information about the building that will be useful to fire fighters as they respond to the building. Floor plan drawings and a detailed audit of the building’s physical characteristics, as well as informa-

Summer 2011



‘If the persons responsible for carrying out the tasks set out in the Plan aren’t trained how to do that, the Plan is only half as useful as it should be.’ In the case of a Plan that is being prepared for a newly-constructed or renovated building or one that has undergone a change of use, the Building or Fire Department will often require that the Plan be submitted for review before they will sign off on the occupancy permit. Building owners should also check for local regulations that may require that the Plan be housed in a location specified by the authority having jurisdiction. For example, in the City of Toronto, Fire Safety Plans must be kept in a box within 3.0 m of the building’s principal entrance. The next step is to actually put the Plan into action. Copies of the Plan or relevant parts of it must be distributed to supervisory



Summer 2011

staff. Supervisory staff is defined in the Fire Code as “…those occupants of a building who have some delegated responsibility for the fire safety of other occupants under the fire safety plan”. This will most often mean personnel responsible for running the building (e.g. superintendent, concierge, security). Emergency procedures (i.e. “If You Discover A Fire…”) may be required to be posted in public areas of the building; however, it is a good idea to distribute the Plan’s detailed emergency procedures and fire prevention information to building occupants as well. Here’s where the buck usually stops: Training. It is a requirement of the Fire Code that

supervisory staff be trained in the fire emergency procedures described in the Plan before they are given any responsibility for fire safety. Earlier in this article the Plan was described as having two purposes. If the persons responsible for carrying out the tasks set out in the Plan aren’t trained how to do that, the Plan is only half as useful as it should be. Training can take different forms. Sitting down with staff and reading through their procedures together may suffice, or a more formal seminar-type training session might be more appropriate. When new staff members are hired, fire safety training should be conducted as part of their orientation. Fire safety training needn’t be limited to supervisory staff. Building owners, condominium boards, property managers, etc., may wish to offer a fire safety training session to their occupants. It could very well be that there is not a great interest on the part of residential occupants to participate in such events,

but it can’t hurt to try. Set up a halfhour session in a building common area, in the evening, offer free coffee and cookies – they will come! If one person learns something from that session that they didn’t know coming in, it could mean the difference between a fire starting or not starting, a fire spreading or being confined, and lives being saved.

increase the risk of fire. The fact that occupants will be sleeping for a good portion of the time decreases their ability to respond quickly to fire situations. Measures such as a basic fire safety education are not difficult or costly and will go a long way towards creating a fire safe environment.

It is easy to underestimate the importance of fire prevention and planning, but it’s never too late to start making fire safety a priority. Question: What’s the best time to start planning for fire emergencies? Yesterday. What’s the second best time? Today. ■

There may be building occupants who have physical or cognitive issues that could affect their ability to react to fire alarms. The occupants themselves should be aware of their options and how to make the decision to try to evacuate or not, and those responsible for emergency planning in the building should be aware of these occupants and their locations. A list of persons who may require assistance to evacuate should be kept in the building for fire fighters to refer to when they respond to a fire alarm. The building’s Owner is responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the Fire Code are carried out. In the Ontario Fire Code, the definition of Owner is as follows: “…any person, firm or corporation having control over any portion of the building or property under consideration and includes the persons in the building or property”. This can mean that anyone with some stake in a building, from condominium residents to property managers, must take some responsibility, albeit to varying extents, for fire safety. At the very least, building occupants must ensure that they cooperate fully with fire safety initiatives undertaken in their buildings. As previously mentioned, fire fatalities continue to decrease; however, they are still occurring far too often and in residential settings. According to the Ontario Fire Marshal’s Office, in Ontario 71% of structural fires between 2005 and 2009 involved residential structures and in 2009 alone there were 80 fatalities in residential fires. Cooking, smoking, large amounts of combustible materials that are typical for a lot of homes, are the things that

Summer 2011



Administrative Tips on How to Run an Efficient Board Meeting Duties of the Property Manager (in most cases) PROVIDED COURTESY OF THE GOLDEN HORSESHOE CHAPTER 1. Manager prepares board package in advance and is gives one to each director a few days before the meeting. (Directors should read information before the meeting and be ready to discuss.) If possible and appropriate, email entire package in advance to directors and if necessary, copy package. 2. Use different colored paper ie. Yellow for the Agenda, White for the Financial Statement, Green for the Property Manager’s Report (saves time looking for a certain document). 3. Ensure each Director has a binder with dividers to keep documents organized. When a Director resigns or their term is over, the binder should be turned over to the new Director. 4. Hole punch the Meeting Package before the meeting or make hole punch available to directors. 5. Use a larger font (12 is regular, try 14 font) - for easier legibility. 6. If possible, have the Chair review the Agenda before the meeting so Manager can make amendments before it is distributed. Have Directors advise the Chair before the Agenda is prepared if they want any item added to the Agenda. 50


Summer 2011

7. Board Package should include: a. Agenda b. Previous Month’s Financial Statement (reconciled) c. Bring cheques for review and signature (2 signatures per cheque) d. Previous Meeting’s Minutes (try to issue minutes soon after the board meeting so everyone remembers what was discussed. This will help directors note if there are any changes/amendments to be made and reminds everyone what is expected of them for the next meeting). e. Property Manager’s Report - Items Completed (since the last meeting) - Items in Progress/to be Discussed f. List of: - previously deferred Items not to be forgotten (future plans) - priority list (review at each meeting) - items for next newsletter

g. Back-up Information ie. Copies of quotations (summary of quotes in chart form to save time) h. Superintendent’s Report - either she/he attends part of the meeting or submits a written report (shows respect for the employee and that their opinion is valued, feels part of the management team) i. Correspondence (saves time reading letters that are submitted to the board) 8. Review draft budget with Treasurer before it is presented to entire Board for discussion and approval. 9. Set a time limit for each item on the Agenda (prevents drawn out meetings). Put the most important items first, rather than leaving possible contentious issues until the end of the meeting; i.e. Special assessment, don't leave it until 10pm. ■

Green Condo Champions: A Survey of Energy Performance in 50 Condominiums BY BRYAN PURCELL, HBA, MA, TORONTO ATMOSPHERIC FUND

ondominiums are the fastest growing form of housing in the City of Toronto as well as many other urban centres around the country. However, most condominium buildings — even newly-built ones — are relatively inefficient and could reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by 25% or more using simple, costeffective measures. For example, our condo energy retrofit case studies – previously reported in this magazine – profiled a thirty year old condo and a four year old condo which were both able to dramatically cut their energy costs by investing in efficiency – with paybacks in the 2 to 5 year range (see for details).

Second, financing condo energy retrofits can be difficult. While a well-managed condominium corporation should have a healthy reserve fund, the Ontario Condominium Act restricts the extent to which these funds can be allocated towards energy-efficiency upgrades. Other financing tools, such as loans or leases, are sometimes required. Finally,

Inefficient buildings are bad not only for the planet, they are bad for your bottom line. That’s because utility costs typically make up approximately a third of condominium operating budgets. While many other major cost centres, like property taxes, are essentially fixed costs, energy costs are controllable. Getting control of energy costs is often the best thing to ensure the long-term financial health of a condominium corporation.

condominiums have complex decisionmaking frameworks. Where a loan is required, or if an energy upgrade is classed as a capital addition, approval from a majority or even super-majority of unit-owners may be required. I probably don’t have to tell you how challenging that can be! Because of these barriers, few condominiums are able to successfully implement significant energy efficiency or renewable energy projects.

However, achieving energy savings can be challenging. Condominiums face a unique set of barriers when it comes to implementing energy improvements. First, condominium directors are volunteers and few have specific training or background in energy matters.

That’s why Toronto Atmospheric Fund launched the Green Condo Champions project in 2010. The project was designed to assist condominium directors and managers in implementing energy conservation and renewable energy measures in their


buildings in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy costs. The first phase of the project involved the creation of a user-friendly guidebook, called The Power of Green, for condo directors and managers interested in getting their energy costs under control. The guide details the steps required for assessing your building’s current

‘Inefficient buildings are bad not only for the planet, they are bad for your bottom line.’ energy performance, prioritizing energy upgrade measures and developing a comprehensive implementation plan. You can download the guide for free or order print copies at . The second phase of the project involved a series of training seminars for condo directors and managers, held in partnership with the Canadian Condominium Institute. These seminars, held in the fall of 2010, covered a variety of topics including: the business case for energy-efficiency upgrades; case studies of successful projects; strategies for communicating the benefits to skeptical residents and directors; legal restrictions on the use of reserve funds; renewable energy options; and Summer 2011



financing approaches. While no further seminars are currently scheduled, you can view videos of all of the presentations at or download the presentation files at The final element of the project was a free energy opportunities assessment for each participating condominium corporation. This was made possible by the generous financial support of the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada. Following a competitive bidding process, Mann Engineering was retained to conduct the building assessments. Each building received a detailed report outlining a prioritized menu of building specific energy conservation options. Fifty buildings were assessed through this process.

‘Perhaps the most surprising finding was that building age seems to have no relationship to energy performance’ but this is not necessarily the case. We were able to collect natural gas consumption data for 38 of the participating buildings. The data are shown in the chart below (on a per square metre basis), along with the building age. As

you can see, many of the top performers were over 20 years old while some of the worst performers were under 10. The buildings shown in yellow have at least some of their heating provided

In many ways the results were surprising. This diverse group of buildings included condominium corporations as young as 6 years and as old as 40. Some had already undertaken extensive energy conservation projects while others had not. Nevertheless, the building assessments identified a number of cost-effective conservation opportunities for every participating building. The most commonly identified conservation opportunities are summarized in the table below: Perhaps the most surprising finding was that building age seems to have no relationship to energy performance (at least in this sample of buildings). One would expect that condominiums built within the past 10 years would tend to be more efficient than those built 30 years ago,



% of buildings with opportunities

Variable Frequency Drives for fans and/or pumps


Automated building controls


Heating boiler or system upgrades


Common area lighting upgrades


Domestic hot water boiler or system upgrades



Summer 2011

electrically, so are not directly comparable to the other buildings. But even among the buildings which rely exclusively on gas for heat, energy intensity ranged from 3.2 m3/m2 to 22 m3/m2. To put that in perspective, that corresponds to a range of $240/suite/year to over $1500/suite/year. For a two-hundred suite condominium, that’s a difference of a quarter million dollars every year. With that kind of money at stake, it’s no surprise that two-thirds of

the participating buildings indicated that they were very likely, or certain, to implement at least some of the recommended energy upgrades in their buildings. Wondering how your building’s energy performance compares? A building energy assessment by a qualified energy management firm can help you benchmark your building’s current energy use and identify a menu of conservation options to improve your performance. You can find a list of energy management firms at And remember, if your condo is located in the 416 area code, our free Conservation Advisor service is here to help you plan your energy upgrades and access government incentive programs – simply email or call 647-728-7946. ■

• • • • • • • • • • •

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 service Carpet cleaning Exterior highrise window cleaning Building corridor renovations

Head Office (905)


Toll-free (877)


Fax (905)


49 Elm Street, Suite 202, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1H1 E-mail:

Summer 2011



You’ve Bought A Condo...Now What? – Part II BY JULIAN MCNABB, BA SIMERRA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. n the last publication of Condovoice some of the more technical aspects of buying a condominium in Ontario were discussed: Status Certificates, Condominium Fees, understanding what a Condominium actually is, how it works, some of the systems that ensure that it continues to work, and finally, Tarion. This installment of “You’ve Bought a Condo.. Now What?” will focus on the living aspects of Condominium Life.


be reflected in the monthly fee you pay. Typically, the more services that the condominium offers, the higher your monthly maintenance fee will be. The best way to find out what services your condominium corporation offers is to contact management, if the property is professionally managed or simply read through the extensive documents which you would have received when purchasing as part of the status certificate.

Amenities Benefits of Condominium Living At A Glance Condominium living is a lifestyle. Once you have purchased a condominium and taken possession, you would have noticed that every month a common element fee or “maintenance fee”, payable to the Condominium Corporation, is withdrawn from your bank account. A portion of this fee would go towards services and amenity maintenance where applicable. In essence, a portion of your condominium fee goes towards providing you with a condominium lifestyle. For example, if you live in a condominium with hallways chances are the condominium corporation has engaged the services of a cleaner who will vacuum or mop those areas when required. If there is grass in the summer time, it will be cut, and if there is snow in the winter season, it will be cleared. Of course, every condominium is different. There are instances where you may have to cut grass and shovel snow but this will 56


Summer 2011

Many residents of a condominium community love the condominium lifestyle because of the amenities that are now offered as part of their purchase. Not all homeowners can afford to buy their very own pool, basketball court, personal fitness room, gym or have a concierge oversee their home around the clock. Some condominiums may even provide a fully-furnished guest room for overnight visitors. These amenities are, in fact, an extension of your home. The ability to use the fitness room or gym at your leisure without having to pay for gym membership fees or to adhere to gym hours of operation and the ability to host an engagement party or a baby shower in the condominium’s party room, rather than renting an outside venue, are both more cost-effective and more convenient for you as homeowner. Living in a condominium also supplies a “wow factor” that may not be attainable in your typical single dwelling

home. Many condominiums are extremely well-designed, are professionally styled and decorated and house a beautiful lobby and entrance ways, which draw immense curb appeal. There is nothing quite like living in a building that is a desirable place in which to live.

The Convenience Factor It is not by coincidence that Condominiums tend to be built in great locations. Close to highways, shops, public transport and in proximity to the downtown core, condominiums are most often built in preferred spaces. Without a doubt, it is convenient to live in a condominium. With this convenience also comes simplicity. One of the many benefits of shared living is that services, such as controlled access doors and concierge security, will ensure that residents’ property will be well lookedafter in their absence. In the event of extended travel, residents can simply lock their unit doors and rest assured that their units will be protected. In addition to security another convenience for condominium owners is coverage for repairs and maintenance to the common areas and, even in some cases, parts of their home. Those who are enjoying the benefits of the condominium lifestyle often hear from their house-owning friends that the cost of major repairs, such as a roof that unexpectedly required replacement, can cause quite the financial burden. Ontario’s Condominium Act requires

that condominiums be prepared for a “rainy day” through the establishment of a Reserve Fund. This means that owners of a condominium can sleep soundly at night knowing that a portion of their monthly common element fee is being set aside for major repairs or replacement of building components. One of the documents that forms an integral part of the Status Certificate is the reserve fund balance and the reserve fund funding plan. The reserve fund balance and funding plan outline how much money the condominium corporation needs to put aside each year in order to ensure that the building is well maintained and that there is enough money to cover any future expenses, anticipated or otherwise. The annual budget that the Board of Directors approves each year will have a section dedicated to the reserve fund contribution. Put simply, it takes most of the guesswork out of how much money future renovations, major repairs and replacement of equipment that has

‘Before a new owner of a condominium can start enjoying the benefits of the condominium lifestyle, he must first join the community.’ reached the end of its life will cost. Welcome to the Family Before a new owner of a condominium can start enjoying the benefits of the condominium lifestyle, he must first join the community. It should be pointed out that living in a condominium is the same as living in a community; the two go hand-in-hand and are inseparable. By purchasing a unit in a condominium, you automatically become a member of the community. If you’re the type of person who enjoys socializing with others, then condominium living is right for you. Once you move into your new home, you will enter into shared living environment. This can be ideal if you’re looking forward to meeting new people, making friends and

engaging in social activities.

Rules To Live By Making use of and taking advantage of all the services and amenities that a condominium has to offer does come at a cost. Sometimes new owners need to adjust the way they are accustomed to living in order to enjoy their new condominium lifestyle. Certain adjustments or sacrifices to previous habits may need to be made. This is because, as you enter into an environment where a lot of people live in close proximity, issues may arise as a result of living in a high-density environment. Rules and regulations are written to form guidelines to ensure all residents can make the most of their shared living space.

Summer 2011



Some examples to consider: the master chef who has either downsized or moved out of a house, who previously had unrestricted use of a BBQ, may now find him/herself in a position where they are not allowed to have a personal BBQ on their balcony and must share communal BBQs located nowhere near their condominium unit. The use of such a BBQ may also be

seasonal or be subject to availability. That impressive surround-sound system that doubles as a foot massager when the bass is turned up high will likely result in visits from both neighbours, who are disturbed by the vibrations and Management who would be enforcing the rules of the condominium corporation.

The boisterous parties you may have hosted in your previous home that could have rivaled the parties held by sporting team campuses may lead to a visit from security or worse, the police, which would certainly put a damper on the festivities. These large gatherings may no longer be an option in your new condominium unit, and instead would be better suited to the amenity or party rooms that your condominium may have for rent. Finally, you may own a show dog that wins first prize at the exhibition every year and is loved by all... except your neighbours, who may not enjoy its habit of barking all day when you are not home. Pets as well as people need to adjust to the condominium lifestyle. To aid in your pet’s transition to a condominium there are a number of pet training and walking services that specialize in helping pets adjust. Owners who do not take steps to help their pets adjust to living in a condominium will quickly become acquainted with the rules of a condominium, as most declarations will have some restrictions or nuisance clauses pertaining to pets and their permitted behavior which will be enforced. To enjoy the condominium lifestyle, you would not like your peace and quiet disturbed by a noisy, barking dog, a large party down the hall or the movie-theatre quality surround sound from next door. At the end of the day, most condominium owners are prepared to make the necessary changes to enter into the condominium lifestyle. The Condominium Corporation’s declaration, rules and bylaws are not overly restrictive and, more importantly, are not unreasonable. Once simple living adjustments are made and new owners become accustomed to condominium life, they can prepare themselves for a very enjoyable and rewarding experience with newly-made friends, in a secure environment and in a stylish, well-maintained building situated in their ideal neighbourhood. For further information on Condominium Living, CCI Toronto offers education courses and seminars and can be accessed via their website at â–



Summer 2011

Have you renewed your CCI-T Membership for 2010-11? If not, call our membership department at 416-491-6216 Ext. 241


Real Estate Brokerage

For your Real Estate Needs call: 4 16-5 15-2 1 2 1 • Real Estate Broker of Record - specializing in Condominium Sales since 1982 • Current condominium Owner, Past President and Director • 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 past

Director of Toronto Chapter of REIC


Summer 2011



Check Out the CCI Bookstore at

Resource material for Condominium Owners, Managers and Boards of Directors



Summer 2011

Visit the CCI Website at for current information on upcoming CCI Courses and Events!

Summer 2011





Summer 2011

From the Editor Cont’d. from page 6 intentionally misrepresent the facts for the sole purpose of obtaining proxies and power. The further result is dependant upon what the successful proxy hunters wish to do. Will they govern well? If they presented all the facts properly at the doorway discussion the future may be bright but, if the facts were misrepresented, the future is grim indeed. In the aftermath of the Humphrey nomination, Americans decided to abandon the use of proxy votes in presidential nominations because the number of proxies cast resulted in the election of a presidential candidate who was not the choice of those delegates actually present at the meeting.

At condominium meetings proxy voting is clearly an injustice where it reverses the will and decisions made by the majority of those present who had the first-hand opportunity to hear all opinions voiced and properly debated. How can it be that the will of those present at a meeting can be nullified by the submission of proxy votes which were obtained by completely undisclosed private conversations? We don’t know what might have been said to those unit owners giving the proxies and we can never effectively and practically verify that the information given was accurate and complete.

is never disclosed during the doorway discussion, then the whole process of applying the democratic ideals of parliamentary procedure and debate to voting at condominium meetings is defeated. Why should such a vote overrule a vote by a careful unit owner who has attended the meeting and listened to both sides? This is the main reason why proxy voting at condominium meetings must be seriously reconsidered or reconfigured.

Mario Deo, LL.B. However, let’s say for purposes of argument that the information that was given, however unlikely, was given correctly. In such a case, if the proxy signatory is persuaded to vote one way and not the other, because the alternate view


Riddick and Butcher (1985). Riddick’s Rules of

Procedure, p. 155-156

Summer 2011



President’s Message Cont’d. from page 5 The Toronto Board, together with its very capable administration at Taylor Enterprises, keeps a beehive of activity going without anyone realizing the effort. Lynn Morrovat, Josee Lefebvre, Maria Galati, and all the rest of the Taylor support people work diligently to accomplish the many tasks that the Toronto and Area Board asks of them. They do it with style and with a smile on their face, which makes it easy for all of the rest of us. The Toronto Chapter, with more than 1000 members has grown beyond the resources that a strictly volunteer effort could muster. Taylor has enabled us to come of age. I would like to thank all of the Toronto Board and Taylor Enterprises for their dedication and commitment on behalf of the whole Condominium community. Have a wonderful and safe summer.

Bill Thompson BA, RCM, ACCI, FCCI President



Summer 2011

List of Advertisers A.R. Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 ACMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Adams & Miles LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 AME Materials Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Atrens Management Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Baird Roofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Brady & Seidner Associates Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Carma Industries Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Condominium Living Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Construction Control Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Coulter Building Consultants Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 CPL Connoisseur Painting Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 CPL Condominium Design Interiors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 D&D Party Tent Rentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Davroc Consulting Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26, 61, 66 Diamond Carpet Cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Donna Swanson Real Estate Brokerage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Dryerfighters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Elia Associates Barristers and Solicitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 EnerCare Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 Enerplan Building Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 EXP Services Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Fine & Deo Barristers & Solicitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Firenza Plumbing & Heating Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Fogler, Rubinoff LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Genivar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Geofocus Mould Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 Green Leaf Landscaping and Maintenance Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 GRG Building Consultants Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 GSA Property Management Specialists Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Gulfstar Emergency Services Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Heenan Blaikie LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Horlick Levitt Di Lella LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 ICC Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 LAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Larlyn Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 Mareka Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Resolution Services (Colm Brannigan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Metro Compactor Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Miller Thomson LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Morrison Financial Services Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Morrison Hershfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Nadlan-Harris Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Ontario Screen Systems Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Percel Professional Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Pillar Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Pro-House Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Provident Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Regal Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 RIKOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Rogers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Royal Grande Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Samuel Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 SmithValeriote Law Firm LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 SR Wise Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Summa Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Suncorp Valuations Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Tator Roses & Leong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10, 62 TowerWise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Waste Solutions Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Whiterose Janitorial Service Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Wilkinson Chutes Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Wilson Blanchard Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 YARDI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17


Your Condominium Emergency Specialist Servicing the GTA 24 / 7




Summer 2011

CondoVoice - Summer 2011  
CondoVoice - Summer 2011  

CCI-Toronto CondoVoice - Summer 2011