CondoVoice - Winter 2009

www.ccitoronto.org

VOL. 14, NO. 2 • WINTER 2009

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

Condominium of the Year

2009-2010 Quarter Finalist Plus: ■

■ ■

■

■ ■

Highlights of the Joint CCI/ACMO Condominium Conference Motivating the Unmotivated The Philosophy of Insurance When Does Accommodation Become Hardship?

Managing Your Reserve Fund Through HST Implementation Keep the Cash Flowing Adequate Reserve Fund Defined!

… and more

PM #40047055

Contents 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: ccitoronto@taylorenterprises.com Website: www.ccitoronto.org

2009/2010 Board of Directors PRESIDENT Armand Conant, B.Eng., LL.B., D.E.S.S. (Co-Chair, Legislative Committee, Chair, Conference Committee) Heenan Blaikie LLP

VICE-PRESIDENTS Mario Deo, LL.B. (Chair, Public Relations Committee Member, Conference Committee) Fine & Deo LLP Bill Thompson, BA, RCM, ACCI (Vice -Chair Membership Committee and Vice-Chair Education Committee) Malvern Condominium Property Management

SECRETARY/TREASURER Bob Girard, B.Comm, RCM, ACCI, FCCI (Chair: Special Projects Committee, CAI Liaison) AA Property Management & Associates

PAST PRESIDENT John Warren, C.A. (Member, Education Committee Member, Legislative Committee) Adams & Miles LLP

BOARD MEMBERS Gordon Chong, DDS (Member, Legislative Committee) MTCC # 0620 Brian Horlick, B.Comm., B.C.L., LL.B., ACCI (Chair, Legislative Committee, Member, Conference Committee) Horlick Levitt Barristers & Solicitors Jeff Jeffcoatt - P.Eng, RCM Construction Control Inc. Lisa Kay (Member, Public Relations Committee, Conference Committee, Website Committee) Morrison Financial Limited Julian McNabb (Member, Public Relations Committee and Membership Committee) Simerra Property Management Ltd. Vic Persaud, BA (Chair, Membership Committee, Chair Website Committee) Suncorp Valuations Ltd. Sally Thompson, P.Eng. (Member, Education Committee Member, Legislative Committee) Halsall Associates Ltd.

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

ADMINISTRATOR - Lynn Morrovat ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT - Josee Lefebvre

Features

9

Motivating the Unmotivated: Another Governance and Maintenance Responsibility of Condominium Corporations

by Deborah M. Howes

14 18 23 25 29

The Philosophy of Insurance

by Jim MacKenzie

When Does Accommodation Become Hardship?

by Brian Horlick

Managing Your Reserve Fund Through HST Implementation

by Sally Thompson

Keep the Cash Flowing - A Management Systems Perspective

by Bill Thompson

New “One-stop” Service Provides Energy Efficiency Incentive Information for Condos

by Tim Stoate

35 39 49 50 53

Aging In Place

by Denise Lash

Want to Pass a New Pet Rule? - Prepare to be Challenged!

By Michael Pascu

Are Noisy Neighbours Driving You Crazy? from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC)

Adequate Reserve Fund – Defined!

by Sally Thompson

HST Implementation Measures - Prepayments

by Brian Antman

CCI News 5 President’s Message 8 From the Editor 31 Highlights of the 13th Annual CCI/ACMO Condominium Conference

42 47 54 56 59

Condo of the Year - Quarter Finalist CCI Toronto Legislative Update on the GST Member News New Members Upcoming Events Winter 2009

thecondovoice

3

President’s Message his month marks the one year anniversary of my becoming President and as I look back at my initial President’s Message in the Winter 2008 CondoVoice I see that I was not far off in my prediction that 2009 would be a busy year.

T

The Board began 2009 with a half day planning session, at which time we reviewed our mission statement and the overall direction in which we wished to move CCI Toronto forward in the best interests of our members. This was an extremely valuable exercise and really helped to focus the direction and activity of each Committee. I expect this exercise will become an annual event and we are already looking forward to the 2010 planning session.

Each of our Committees has been busy and productive over the past year, accomplishing such feats as welcoming our 1000th member, launching the Condo 201 director’s course and organizing a highly successful annual condominium conference (see pages 31-33 for conference highlights). I would like to thank all board and Committee members for their contributions, as we could not possibly achieve such success without their volunteer efforts.

Over the past 4-5 months the work of the Government Relations has taken on a new sense of urgency and importance with the announcement of the HST. As outlined on page 33 of the Fall issue of the CondoVoice the Committee has met numerous Cabinet Ministers and other high level officials in Ministries including Consumer and Business Services, Transportation, Revenue and Finance. Our continued message on behalf of condo owners across the province focuses on our opposition to the inequities the HST will create for condo owners. The growing force behind this opposition was witnessed at the ACMO lunch in September 2009 when over 400 attendees flooded the venue to hear MPP Yasir Naqvi, John Warren and myself speak on the issue of HST. Since that time, the Government Relations Committee has met, along with other industry leaders, to develop and submit several specific recommendations to the government, which would ease the HST burden on condo owners. These recommendations were discussed at the recent HST seminar offered free of charge to all CCI members on November 19th, 2009.

When the government announced that the Bill would be introduced into the Legislature on November 16th, the Committee was contacted by the office of the Leader of the Opposition Party and Dean McCabe and myself were present to stand with Conservative Leader, Tim Hudak and other stakeholder groups at a planned news conference. Subsequent to that news conference, I appeared on Global TV’s show Focus Ontario which aired on Saturday November 21st. Appearing with me was a representative from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association who spoke in support of the HST, while I, as President of CCI Toronto, spoke on its unfair and significant impact on condominium owners. The work of the Committee on the HST issue is not yet over and we will continue our efforts in support of all Ontario Condo owners.

So, at the end of my first year as President of CCI Toronto, I think I can safely predict that 2010 will also be another busy year for the Chapter.

Seasons Greetings to All!

Armand Conant, B.Eng, LL.B., D.E.S.S. (Sorbonne) President, CCI Toronto & Area Chapter

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

5

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

EDITOR: Mario Deo MAGAZINE DIRECTORS: Lisa Kay and Julian McNabb ADVERTISING: Marie McNamee COPY EDITOR: Ruth Max COMPOSITION: E-Graphics All advertising enquiries should be directed to Marie McNamee at (905) 852-2802 or marie@mcnamee.ca

If you are interested in writing articles for TheCondoVoice magazine, please contact Marie McNamee at (905) 852-2802 or at marie@mcnamee.ca. 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

6

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

DEBORAH M. HOWES, LLB, ACCI, FCCI, C.ARB., C.MED. (Motivating the Unmotivated, page 9). Deborah M. Howes is the President of High Clouds Incorporated. Deborah is a wellknown facilitator, arbitrator, mediator, and trainer and is a highly sought after speaker on dispute resolution and condominium matters. Deborah is a past President of CCI National and of the CCI North Alberta Chapter.

JIM MACKENZIE, MBA, DAA, FCIP(HONS) (The Philosophy of Insurance, page 14) Jim is an insurance broker at Dusyk & Barlow Insurance Brokers Ltd. in Regina, Saskatchewan. He is also the President of the South Saskatchewan CCI Chapter and is the CCI National Vice-President. Jim is a frequent lecturer for various chapters of the Canadian Condominium Institute and has authored and led seminars for the Insurance Institute of Saskatchewan and the Insurance Brokers' Association of Saskatchewan.

BRIAN HORLICK, B.COMM., B.C.L. LL.B., ACCI (When Does Accommodation Become Hardship?, page 18). Brian has been successfully engaged in the practice of law for 25 years. He is a senior partner with the law firm of Horlick Levitt and is an expert in the area of condominium law. He is a director of CCI, Chair of the CCI Legal & Governmental Affairs Committee, Chair of the ACMO Associates Executive Communications Committee.

SALLY THOMPSON, P.ENG, M. ENG (Managing Your Reserve Fund Through HST Implementation, page 23 and Adequate Reserve Fund – Defined!, page 50). Sally started her career with Halsall in 1990 and became a shareholder in 1995. She is currently the Practice Leader for Halsall’s Building Audit service, but also fulfills a Project Principal role and has participated in the preparation of Reserve Fund Studies and/or Performance Audits for several hundred corporations. Sally is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Condominium Institutes - Toronto Chapter.

BILL THOMPSON (Keep the Cash Flowing, page 25) He is the President of Malvern Condominium Property Management, which is an “ACMO 2000 Certified Company”. Bill is an active member of both the Toronto Chapter Board and the National Executive Board of Directors for

CCI and is a past director on the ACMO Board.

Bill is a frequent lecturer and guest speaker at numerous industry conferences and courses.

TIM STOATE (New “One Stop” Service Provides Energy Efficiency Incentive Information for Condos, page 29) Tim Stoate is Director, Mandate-related Finance for the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, which has developed the TowerWise high-rise energy efficiency program.

DENISH LASH (Aging in Place, page 35) Denise Lash co-heads the condominium department of the law firm Heenan Blaikie LLP. She is a regular columnist for various publications and has also appered on several well known radio and television shows. In 2006, Denise was the host of MondoCondo TV, a national programme. As a frequent lecturer, she volunteers her time to promote condo education.

Denise is also the founder of the Toronto Condo Show, a one-stop consumer show featuring condominium suppliers.

MICHAEL PASCU, B.A., LL.B (Want to Pass a New Pet Rule?, page 39) Michael has been with Fine & Deo since his call to the bar in 1998 and practices primarily in the area of condominium law. He has represented condominium corporations on a variety of matters and is widely published in various industry publications. Michael is also a frequent lecturer and is a member of ACMO’s Ethics Committee.

BRIAN ANTMAN, C.A. (HST Implementation Measures Prepayments, page 53) Brian is a partner with the firm Adams & Miles LLP, Chartered Accountants. He administers the firm’s Condominium Group which currently provides audit and accounting services to over 275 condominiums in the GTA. Brian is a member of the Canadian Condominium Institute – Toronto and Area Chapter and the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario. He speaks at condominium conferences, seminars and educational programs and is the author of a number of articles on condominium financial matters.

Cover photo –

YCC #266 The Masters

From the Editor e all love a good website. Whether we want to do some shopping or find out information about a product, the simplicity and convenience is undeniable. In the case of post-turnover condominiums, a website could be very helpful to inform owners of various issues affecting the community or, even better, as a marketing tool for prospective buyers in the building. In general, a website that is controlled completely (emphasis on completely) by a board presents few issues.

W

The real problem arises when an owner posts a website or blog to air their grievances about the condominium. Logic goes out the window. Think about it, an owner, who has a direct interest in the property value of the units in the building, is posting negative information about their own project! Wow, some people never cease to amaze us. Does such an owner even think about what they are doing? Do you think that there are people out there comparing notes on condominiums they want to buy? Do you think that one of the first things they do is type in the name of the condo and its number on Google? Do you think real estate agents will bother to carefully check out this negative information, or will they simply go to the next building that has no negative web information? After all, they are just trying to make a sale – they don’t want to explain the negative information to potential buyers.

Even worse, once negative information is on the web, it seems to have an ugly permanence. There will eventually be a case where the culprit will be found liable for huge damages for reducing the value of units in his or her building. Until then, there will be those owners, ignorant of their own lack of intelligence, who post negative information on the web. And sorry, the courts have ruled that stupidity cannot be remedied by the courts because everyone has the right to freedom of speech (Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 932 v. Lahrkamp).

Solutions you ask? Of course; cure all ignorance in the world or call your lawyer.

Mario Deo, LL.B.

CCI Toronto welcomes responses and comments from members. Please forward your comments to the attention of the Editor at ccitoronto@taylorenterprises.com

8

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

Motivating the Unmotivated: Another Governance and Maintenance Responsibility of Condominium Corporations

BY DEBORAH M. HOWES, LL.B., ACCI, FCCI, C.ARB., C.MED. PRESIDENT, HIGH CLOUDS INCORPORATED ondominium corporations need volunteers. This statement surprises no one. Volunteers complete all the governance and community functions of the condominium corporation, through the board of directors and various committees. The challenge is recruiting and retaining those volunteers.

C

A volunteer is a person who actively takes on a task, responsibility or project on his or her own accord; a person who takes the initiative to do something.

Canada is known for its altruistic spirit; volunteers abound for just about every cause, organization and event.

We know that people volunteer everyday – in large and small ways. We volunteer for social agencies, for our children – at school and in sports and the arts, at work, for our local, provincial or federal governments, for our friends and families, for causes that we support or believe in, or for change we want to advocate.

We easily know that we want people who will step forward to serve on the condominium board, committees and work projects. We find it frustrating that so many owners appear unwilling to contribute to the condominium community in ways we view as valuable or

needed. What can we do to improve the life cycle of volunteers in the condominium community? Why do people not willingly volunteer at home?

One response is the mixed messages in the condominium environment. Condominium involves property, business or governance and community. Buyers purchase condominium units as property investments, residences and business locations. Both developers and condominium owners focus on the property when they sell condominium units. The property has certain amenities, desireable size and features a good reserve fund, recent repairs or upgrades, and a good location. Occasionally we hear about the community identity in sales ads. Rarely, if at all, do we hear that condominiums are corporations that require a board of directors to govern the corporation and make business decisions for this medium to large business or social enthusiasts to create or continue the identity of this quasi-community league.

Condominiums create competition for people’s time, energy and resources. If the condominium is a business location, the owners’ primary focus may be the success of their own business. For a condominium owner who owns a residential unit, the conflict is even more

obvious. A non-condominium homeowner comes home from work to enjoy family or social activities or chosen volunteer activities outside the home. This person must make some decisions and take some actions, within his or her own priorities and fiscal ability, to maintain his or her property.

Contrast this to the condominium unit owner. We ask the condominium unit owner to come home and then to: • serve on a committee such as bylaws, finance, maintenance, social events, newsletter, welcome to new owners • serve on the board of directors to approve a budget, enforce the legislation and bylaws, • tender and approve contracts, oversee the maintenance, repair and replacement of the property • open his or her home to other directors or owners for meetings • commit an undetermined amount of time to corporation business • carry out tasks with little or no orientation or training and variable support • accept the praise and public criticism of other owners and residents • make decisions within a structure that they have little ability to change • deal with people that others have chosen – for example the elected board

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

9

• contribute financially to the maintenance and value of their property based on priorities set by others.

The condominium community as a whole needs to begin marketing the opportunities that exist for people in the community. All condominium communities offer opportunities to learn and experience elected office and governance. Condominium volunteers learn how to chair effective meetings present reports, make effective decisions, and interpret legislation and contracts.

They learn how to take minutes, prepare for a meeting, read a budget and financial statements, and read and evaluate a tender document. They learn how to read condominium plans, understand construction methods, and financial planning. They network with condominium managers, lawyers, accountants, engineers, insurance brokers and other professionals. At the same time, these volunteers obtain the satisfaction and confidence that their home is sound

10

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

and their property values are holding or improving. Condominium volunteers get all this for the small price of some of their time. Where else can a person add to or enhance their job or business skills for such a small price?

Another response to why people do not volunteer in condominium is that people are apathetic. We hear about apathy a lot. Apathy is the wall before us.

Apathy is a lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal, an indifference, a lack of emotion or feeling, or impassiveness. Looking at the definition can help us realize what we have to overcome to increase volunteerism. How do we generate interest or create concern? How do we create emotion or feelings that result in actions that assist our communities? What incentives or encouragements will work? In other words, how do we motivate owners and residents to become the volunteers in condominium communities?

According to one Canadian study, there are six key incentives for volunteering: • Achievement • Recognition and feedback • Personal growth • Giving something back • Bringing about social change • Family ties • Friendship, support, bonding and a feeling of belonging

See: A Report to the Voluntary Action Directorate Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada Ottawa 1992 ISBN 0-662-20105-1 http://www.nald .ca/fulltext/heritage/ComPartnE/WhyP plE1.htm. Three of the items in this list are very applicable to condominium communities so I have included some excerpts about those topics.

First is achievement, which was seen as “A strong and common thread … was the need to achieve and the recognition that many kinds of achievement

could result in satisfaction. Accomplishing an intended result, discovering new capabilities in oneself and making something bad turn into something good, …. Although it was not recognized as a motivation for getting involved in the first place, the opportunity to accomplish some thing — to see direct results from one's personal effort — was what kept them coming back to volunteer tasks that were sometimes stressful, depressing, or otherwise difficult. …. The need to achieve has its down side too. When reaching goals is impossible because of circumstances or when the organization for which the volunteer works is seen to put obstacles in the path of achievement through poor planning or improper use of a volunteer's time, the volunteer becomes dissatisfied. …. It is important for organizations to provide volunteers with the opportunity to achieve something — however minor — by matching the volunteer with the job that is likely to provide the kind of results the volunteer is looking for.”

Next is recognition and feedback, where the study found “In some cases, though, feedback and recognition were seen as necessary. And volunteers were clear about when and whether it was appropriate.

The more of me I put into it, the more I need feedback, support and recognition. My organization this year put a little thank-you note in their canvassers' package. My reaction was that they could have saved their money. What really mattered was my captain saying, `What you did was really good,' or enquiring how it went… if I never hear from the organization, it doesn't mean a thing one way or the other.

Both personal investment and organizational size seem to have a bearing on feedback expectations: … Whenever possible, feedback needs to be specific and to spell out exactly what the volunteer has achieved: …And feedback from the recipients of a service is sometimes seen as more meaningful than organizational recognition.”

Third is personal growth. Here the study reports, “Among the major rewards and incentives of volunteering appears to be the opportunity for personal growth. Discovering new skills and capabilities, learning more about yourself and other people or overcoming personal challenges were identified by the people in our groups. Participants mentioned being pleasantly surprised by discovering they are good at doing unexpected things. There was talk of growing self-esteem and confidence with each new challenge tackled and skill learned. Others found that life developed more intensity, more colour, as they were exposed to new experiences that would not ordinarily have come their way. … Volunteering also provides new situations and new environments that people might not otherwise be exposed to. … The implication for managers of volunteers is that they must know their volunteers and provide the right sort of challenges and experiences. Sometimes these come with the assignments, but in other cases the opportunities have to be created.”

The same study identified a number of turnoffs for volunteering such as:

• Disorganized management - organizational inefficiency, especially when it wastes a volunteer’s time or makes the assignment more difficult, made a lot of participants angry.

• Lack of board support – volunteers feel devalued when they are not given the resources and equipment to do their jobs.

• Staff indifference – paid staff or contractors often see volunteers as hindrances or obstacles to doing their own jobs.

• Limited training and orientation – many organizations do not provide effective orientation and training procedures on both the content (condominium law etc) and roles (job duties, conducting meetings, reading financial statements, reading tenders, etc.)

• Lack of contact and support – volunteers who are left on their own can feel isolated and face the risk of Winter 2009

thecondovoice

11

CONDOMINIUM DIVISION

Concierge, Gatehouse and Patrol Services Valet Parking Services Mobile Patrol Services By-Law Enforcement Services After Hours Call Centre

INTEGRATED ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEMS In-Suite Security Systems Card Entry Systems Underground Parking Lot Duress/Panic Systems Video Surveillance Systems

G4S Security Services (Canada) Ltd.

65 Overlea Blvd. Toronto, ON M4H 1P1 Telephone: (416) 421-2900

5770 Hurontario Street, Suite 503, Mississauga, ON L5R 3G5 Telephone: (905) 270-7032

S erv i ng ov er 200 propert i es i n t he GTA . . . and grow i ng!

12

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

taking the wrong action or making the wrong decision.

• Wrong assignment – people prefer to do work they enjoy; this challenge increases when returning volunteers keep the same role or take the choice roles, because “they’ve been there longer” or “have always done this task”.

• Perks that are withdrawn – people don’t expect compensation, but once offered they react if it is withdrawn.

• Insufficient funding – lack of organizational funding often means not doing the job or not doing it well, leaving the volunteer to question the value of the tasks.

To this list I add two additional turn offs: meetings and conflicts. Meetings that are long, unstructured, disorganized, of limited value and that have no real purpose or result are major turnoffs to volunteers who have limited time and competing interests. Conflict is also a big turnoff. Conflict arises when people are put into roles with others they did not choose who have different views, values, priorities, information, methods and approaches from themselves.

So what can a condominium corporation do? The current board and manager must recognize that they need to change the organization to make it more attractive to volunteers or they need to recruit the volunteers who like dealing with the challenges present in the current organization or they need to recruit volunteers who can and will change the organization.

The board needs to begin by completing an inventory. The inventory needs to include three items:

1. a current picture of the condominium community – what is the real state of the finances, buildings, common property, conflict, activity, contracts, challenges, upcoming work, etc.

2. a current list of what knowledge, skills, abilities the corporation will need to deal with its current picture.

The North Alberta Chapter of the Canadian Condominium Institute, in its CM 100 materials, developed a questionnaire /exercise to complete these two inventories.

3. an evaluation of what your condominium community offers for volunteers.

The following survey can help evaluate what your condominium community offers for volunteers. It might mirror the first impression owners have about the corporation and the volunteers who contribute to the community. ■

Evaluating What Your Condominium Offers Read each statement and answer yes or no based on your first reaction to your condominium community.

Our directors work as a team.

❍ Yes ❍ No

We have an orientation session for new directors.

❍ Yes ❍ No

Our meetings are well organized and efficient.

❍ Yes ❍ No

We send new directors for training in their roles.

❍ Yes ❍ No

Owners appreciate what our directors do.

❍ Yes ❍ No

Our directors serve multiple terms when no one else steps forward.

❍ Yes ❍ No

We ask new directors to bring their ideas.

❍ Yes ❍ No

We ask new directors how much time they have to offer.

❍ Yes ❍ No

We commonly say “that’s how we do it” or “we tried that and it didn’t work”.

❍ Yes ❍ No

Our directors are recognized and known in our community.

❍ Yes ❍ No

We implement one new idea in our community each year.

❍ Yes ❍ No

Each director has a meaningful and accountable task within our community.

❍ Yes ❍ No

Directors have difficulty protecting their own privacy and personal time.

❍ Yes ❍ No

We clearly explain the role and expectations when we ask for volunteers.

❍ Yes ❍ No

We build on the expertise volunteers bring to our community.

❍ Yes ❍ No

Directors and committee members are able to use their special knowledge and skills in the tasks we assign to them.

❍ Yes ❍ No

Our community has well known and well used conflict resolution procedures.

❍ Yes ❍ No

Returning directors take the roles they prefer.

❍ Yes ❍ No

This evaluation can bring valuable insights to the condominium volunteer assessment. It identifies where the condominium can address change to enhance the volunteer experience. Examine the results and as a board consider the volunteer response to date. Where the answers might indicate a disincentive to volunteers, either consider recruiting a volunteer to carry the task of bringing change to that item or consider changing the item before the next call for volunteers.

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

13

The Philosophy of Insurance Addressing the Conflicting Interests of Condominium Corporations and Unit Owners in Insurance Matters BY: JIM MACKENZIE, MBA, DAA, FCIP (HONS) DUSYK & BARLOW INSURANCE BROKERS LTD.

he interests of condominium corporations and unit owners are, to some degree, in conflict. While both parties have the obvious common interest of preserving the condominium corporation’s property, the details of coverage are generally considered differently by each party. This paper will attempt to analyze this issue and give recommendations for finding a reasonable balance for all parties.

T

Condominium corporation boards and property managers have a natural tendency to reasonably minimize the purchase of insurance. One of their most important duties is to balance the budget of the corporation. Insurance can be a significant cost item in the annual budget. This tends to encourage boards and managers to consider higher deductibles and more restrictive coverage.

Moreover, insurance premiums are based on loss history, both in the class (condominium corporations in general) and the specific insured (in this case, the condominium corporation). Having more restrictive coverage and higher deductibles reduces the number of claims made against the policy, and the size of the claims that are made. This has several benefits: • The loss ratio (total losses divided by

14

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

premiums charged) will improve.

The loss ratio is one of the most important factors in the rating of insurance. Fewer and smaller losses will result in a more favourable loss ratio, which will result in lower premiums (and in times of harder, less competitive markets, when rates tend to increase, more reasonable increases).

• A more favourable loss history can result in better marketability of the insurance portfolio. A condominium corporation with a below-average loss history will find that fewer insurers are interested in providing terms than a corporation with above-average loss history. Particularly in hard-

er insurance markets (but to some degree at all times) corporations with excellent loss histories will have superior ability to choose among insurers. Indeed, a corporation with a significantly below-average history may be forced to stay with the incumbent insurer for some time until the history improves.

• Insurance claims are an administrative inconvenience, both for property managers and corporation boards.

Significant time and effort is spent on the logistics of dealing with claims. Losses that affect a single unit will still generally involve the board or property manager because the corporation’s insurance general-

ly covers the units as they were constructed or converted. If insurance coverage changes can be made to lower loss frequency, this reduces the demands on boards and property managers and can result in spillover effects (more owners being willing to serve on boards; property managers more willing to provide favourable fee schedules).

• There is a percentage of unit owners that pose a moral hazard risk. (Moral hazard is when people are careless and invite a greater propensity of insurance claims, either through their attitude or their knowledge that insurance reduces their personal risk.)

Moral hazard exists to a larger degree in condominiums than in standard housing because a large proportion of total insurance costs are paid by the corporation1. (Although a proportion is charged back in condominium fees, unit owners don’t always make this association.)

Higher deductibles and more restrictive coverage result in some of this risk being assumed by all unit owners, which can at best reduce moral hazard and at worst give a higher cost of the implications to those unit owners who are causing the largest loss frequency.

All provinces in Canada (except Newfoundland and Labrador, which is currently amending its condominium act and will likely include such provisions) require that condominium corporations insure certain property (e.g.

Ontario, c. 19, s. 99(1). Generally this includes liability insurance and property insurance for the common property and the units.2 For example, Ontario’s act requires condominium corporations to insure against fire, lightning, smoke, hail, explosion, water escape, strikes, riots, civil commotions, impact by aircraft or vehicles, vandalism and malicious acts (c. 19, s. 99(2))3.

There is no obligation to insure against more than these perils. Furthermore, by various legal means (e.g. standard unit by-law), corporations may restrict

their responsibility against insuring certain types of property. For example, it is common for the standard unit by-law to offload responsibility for insuring flooring and countertops to unit owners.

Further in this direction, I am seeing an increasing frequency of peril restriction. Where a condominium corporation may choose to buy broader coverage than required by law, it may restrict the types of coverage against which certain types of property are protected.

For example, I have seen by-laws in Saskatchewan that remove coverage for flooring and countertop damage caused

Higher deductibles result in smaller claims being ineligible for coverage, and result in a higher share of responsibility for unit owners and the condominium corporation in the event of larger losses. by most accidents. The condominium corporation policy, in these cases, continues to insure against the required major perils (e.g. fire), but not against other perils (e.g. staining or scorching).

Similar restrictions are common against flooring as well, since these types of property are common sources of small claims.

Higher deductibles are, of course, another option available. Corporations are generally able to choose their own deductibles. Higher deductibles result in smaller claims being ineligible for coverage, and result in a higher share of responsibility for unit owners and the condominium corporation in the event of larger losses. In exchange, the insur-

er charges lower premiums. In many cases, the unit owners are responsible for the deductible.

For example, in Ontario, if a unit owner or unit occupant causes damage due to negligence, the corporation has a right to charge the deductible to that owner or occupant (c. 19, s. 105 (1-4)). Thus, the use of higher deductibles to increase owner responsibility is a tempting strategy.

However, a corporation cannot take a carte blanche approach on this. For example, I have seen corporations pass by-laws that completely exclude water escape damage to units. In Saskatchewan, I suspect that provincial legislation precludes this since water escape is a listed compulsory major peril against which insurance must be purchased. In Ontario, with the ability to craft a standard unit by-law to clarify where responsibility of the corporation ends and the unit owner begins, there may be room for more flexibility.

Irrespective of what a corporation elects to do to control its insurance costs and claims history, unit owners are affected in many important ways:

• Insurance becomes much more complex. Many unit owners have insufficient knowledge of the uniqueness of condominium owner insurance.

Many believe it is the same as insurance for tenants. Of course, it is not.

Unit owners are subjected to loss assessments, deductible assessments, and the necessity to insure their own improvements and betterments.4 Restrictions on certain perils or certain types of property create a greater need to pay attention to unit owners’ policies on contingent coverages that cover such losses. High deductibles on corporation policies can exhaust limits for deductible buydown coverage on unit owners’ policies.

• Denial or restriction of coverage by the corporation’s insurer can create ill will in the minds of owners, who (to some degree justifiably so) may believe that they are paying a share of the premium and therefore deserve Winter 2009

thecondovoice

15

certain coverage. This is particularly of concern when unit owner policies are not correctly written to cover the coverage gap.

• Claims become more complex to adjust. Insurance adjusters have to discern which policy is responsible for what property. This can create disagreement over coverage. To some degree the Insurance Bureau of Canada’s Agreement of Guiding Principles addresses this, but ambiguity still exists. Some insurance professionals recommend that unit owners insure with the same carrier as the condominium corporation uses, to avoid this problem.

However, that creates other issues as there are significant differences in limits and coverage between insurers’ condominium unit owner policies.

• Insurance brokers do not always have the expertise in condominium insurance that they need to properly parse unit owner situations. For example, my own experience has shown that few brokers request a copy of the corporation by-laws and insurance certificate when unit owners purchase unit owner coverage.

These documents contain extremely important information that affects the insurance needs of the unit owner.

Many brokers are not aware of their importance.

It is difficult to make general recommendations due to the unique circumstances that face each condominium corporation. In some cases it may be necessary to veer strongly in the direction of the corporation’s interest in order to ensure that insurance remains available at reasonable cost (for example, in situations where the past loss history is far worse than average).

However, in most cases boards and managers have more options. I advise that the interests of both the condominium corporation and the unit owners be considered in deciding what the balance should be. I also recommend that boards and managers do a good job of educating unit owners as to what they should know to ensure that they are correctly insured. Finally, I recommend that corporations, managers and unit owners learn who is available in the insurance community that understands condominiums and can help ensure that the coverages selected are appropriate with the situation.

ity, water, natural gas, etc. are smaller. If condominium fees include such utilities without regard to indiv idual unit usage, a single unit’s efforts to conserv e hav e the benefits spread out among all units.

Conversely, excess consumption is crosssubsidized by the other units. Movements in Ontario and other jurisdictions to encourage indiv idual metering of utilities are in large measure due to these issues.

2 The insurance situation is different for certain ty pes of condominiums, including loft-sty le condominiums and so-called bare-land or v acant-land condominiums.

Howev er, the general principles in my paper still apply.

Other provinces have similar lists of perils. Sask atchewan’s, for ex ample, though in a different order, is nearly v erbatim identical. See Rev ised Regulations of Sask atchewan, chapter C-26.1 Reg 2 s.

62.1.

3

Condominium corporations may choose to insure improv ements and betterments, but rarely do so and, for v arious reasons, primarily the difficulty of establishing v alues, this author generally recommends that they do not do so. ■ 4

Moral hazard affects non-insurance issues as well. For ex ample, corporations that have non-metered utility billing often find that incentiv es to conserv e electric-

1

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

17

When Does Accommodation Become Hardship?

Dealing With Problem Residents Properly and Professionally

BY BRIAN HORLICK, B.COMM., B.C.L., LL.B., ACCI SENIOR PARTNER OF HORLICK LEVITT

Introduction A condominium corporation can occasionally seem like less of an opportunity for unit owners to share the benefits of co-ownership, and more of a social experiment which assembles as many different personality types as possible in order to see what happens.

However, this article is not about those people who are merely quirky or eccentric. Regrettably, some unit owners and residents have legitimate physical, mental, developmental and/or injuryrelated disabilities that cause them to act in ways that not only violate the Condominium Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules, but are also potentially or actually harmful and/or dangerous to other residents of the condominium corporation or to the assets and property of the corporation itself.

One problem which seems to be increasingly prevalent deals with an owner or resident suffering from a disability who is “warehoused” by a parent, sibling or child who wishes to essentially stash the disabled family member away. The disabled person in this situation sometimes engages in activities that are potentially harmful and the ability of the corporation to address these activities may be restrict18

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

ed by human rights considerations that arise as a result of the owner or resident’s disability. This paper will address how a corporation may balance

It will do little good for a court to order an owner to do or not do something if the owner’s action or inaction is largely involuntary to begin with. the rights of these individuals with the rights of all other unit owners and will specifically explore the recent Ontario decision of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 946 v. J.V.M. (Public Guardian and Trustee of).

The Condominium Act The Condominium Act allows a condominium corporation to take steps to enforce compliance with the Act, dec-

laration, by-laws and rules. Specifically, if a unit owner or resident is in violation of any provision of the Act or the condominium documents, the corporation may bring an application under section 134 for an order requiring the owner to comply with the provision in question, or may seek to involve the owner in mediation and arbitration under section 132, as circumstances may warrant. In the case of a court application, if the owner does not comply, the court has broad discretion to address the situation and may make any order that it deems appropriate, up to and including eventually forcing the unit owner to sell his or her unit.

While the compliance enforcement powers found in the Act are useful in most circumstances, their effectiveness may be substantially reduced in the case of an owner who is suffering from a disability that affects his or her behaviour. It will do little good for a court to order an owner to do or not do something if the owner’s action or inaction is largely involuntary to begin with.

Further, a compliance order may not even be granted where there are competing human rights considerations.

The Human Rights Code Pursuant to subsection 47(2) of

Ontario’s Human Rights Code, the Code applies and prevails despite the provisions of any other Act or regulation, including the Condominium Act, 1998, unless that Act or regulation specifically provides that it is to apply despite the Code. The Condominium Act, 1998 contains no such provision; as such, the Code has primacy over the Act. Section 2 of Ontario’s Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination with respect to the occupancy of accommodation on the grounds of disability.

However, the denial of accommodation to a person under disability is not discrimination where the person under disability is incapable of performing the essential duties or requirements associated with the right to accommodation.

The Code provides, at section 17, that in order for a person under disability to be deemed incapable a court or tribunal must be satisfied that the person’s disability cannot be accommodated without undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating the disabled party.

from paranoid schizophrenia. As a result of her illness, there had been numerous problems over a fifteen-year period between the unit owner and the corporation, its management and staff, and her neighbours. J.V.M.’s condition was cyclical in nature, in that she would have good periods and bad periods.

During her good periods, she was able to manage her disability with the help of medication, and was able to live on her own without incident.

However, during her bad periods, which were generally marked by a failure to take her medication, there was a significant negative impact on the condominium corporation and its unit owners and residents. Between 1992, when J.V.M. acquired her unit, and 2008, when this case was heard, the condominium corporation removed more than 200 bags of garbage and debris from her unit; arranged for her unit to be cleaned on at least eight occasions,

In a condominium context, as will be discussed below, this requirement has been interpreted to mean that a condominium corporation must establish that it has accommodated a disabled person to the point of undue hardship before it can act to remove that person from the condominium community. The problem, of course, is that “undue hardship” is not an objective standard. It is therefore difficult for a condominium corporation dealing with such a problem owner to look at its particular situation and determine with any certainty whether the undue hardship threshold has been met. However, the case law on this subject provides guidance for corporations wondering how they are best to proceed in these types of situations.

“Undue Hardship” The case of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 946 v. J.V.M. (Public Guardian and Trustee of) involved a unit owner who suffered Winter 2009

thecondovoice

19

including at least two occasions that were pursuant to a court order; J.V.M.’s unit was the subject of visits by police that ended with her being involuntarily removed from her unit and taken to hospital on at least eight occasions, including at least one occasion where her unit was so full of debris that the police could not locate her inside of it; her unit was found to be a fire hazard due to accumulated garbage, debris and other materials on at least two occasions; her unit was infested with insects and had to be fumigated on a number of occasions; and there was evidence of at least one fire in her unit.

The condominium corporation had taken all reasonable steps to try to accommodate J.V.M. during this period. These steps included consistent and repeated contact with J.V.M.’s father, doctors, social workers and, finally, the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee; arranging for cleanup and

20

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

repair of her unit on multiple occasions; alteration of security policies to account for J.V.M.’s activities; and entering into multiple agreements with J.V.M. with respect to changes to her conduct.

Ultimately, all of the corporation’s efforts to address J.V.M.’s conduct were unsuccessful, as her behaviour continually spiralled out of control and caused both residents of other units and corporation staff to be fearful and reluctant to deal with her, and was a source of significant stress for all involved. The corporation then took the step of seeking a court order to force J.V.M. to sell her unit in 2004.

At the time of the application, the court held that it was satisfied that the corporation had accommodated the owner to the point of undue hardship, and ordered the owner to list and sell her unit. In so doing, the court noted that this was a serious order to make that would have a significant impact on any-

one, but likely would have a more onerous impact on J.V.M. given her illness.

However, the court justified this order in the circumstances on the basis that J.V.M. was, by reason of her disability, incapable of meeting the responsibilities of living alone in her unit.

Based on the standard set out in the facts of this case, it seems clear that a condominium corporation that is forced to deal with a problem owner of this severity for such an extended period of time will meet the threshold for establishing undue hardship, provided that the corporation has taken all reasonable steps to work with the owner in order to allow the owner to remain in her unit.

However, what is not clear is whether it is necessary for a condominium corporation that seeks to establish undue hardship to accommodate a unit owner to this extent. One can be sure that the neighbours of that owner would hope that the corporation would not be

required to endure a 15-year saga in order to adequately address the owner’s conduct.

Steps to Take Based on the J.V.M. case, there appear to be a number of steps that a corporation should take in order to help establish undue hardship. The corporation should, first of all, determine whether the owner is in fact suffering from a disability. If the owner is simply neglectful or discourteous, as the case may be, the Human Rights Code would not apply and the corporation could proceed under section 132 or 134 of the Condominium Act, as circumstances may warrant.

If, however, the owner is suffering from a disability, the corporation must incorporate this fact into its approach to the

situation. Steps that the condominium corporation took in J.V.M. to accommodate the owner’s disability included contacting the owner’s family, doctors, and social workers for help; arranging for cleaning services to attend at her unit; and generally giving the owner much more leeway than a non-disabled owner would have received in similar circumstances.

Given the amount of time that all this would inevitably take – as evidenced by the fact that the J.V.M. case involved 15 years of objectionable behaviour – the corporation would likely be best served to try to get the owner’s family involved early, and to keep them involved. If the corporation can, by so doing, move the matter to a resolution that does not involve a court application, it will be to the benefit of all parties involved. ■

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

21

Managing Your Reserve Fund Through HST Implementation

BY SALLY THOMPSON, P.ENG., HALSALL ASSOCIATES LIMITED f the HST is implemented as planned on July 01, 2010, it will have an impact on condominium reserve funds. What is not clear, as it is not yet a law, is whether HST should be included in reserve fund studies currently being prepared. Nor is it clear if corporations will need to get an interim reserve fund study update completed in 2010 to reflect the impact of HST or if they can continue their existing 3-year update cycle. This article will provide recommendations regarding accommodating HST without requiring an interim reserve fund study update.

I

Your reserve fund study provider should be able to estimate the increase in contribution level due to HST without completing a full reserve fund study update. The increase can be calculated based on the current contribution level, the existing reserve fund balance and the time to the first critical year (refer to table on the next page, which provides guidance).

We predict that HST will add, on average, about 5% to the underlying reserve fund costs. This does not translate into a simple 5% increase in the required contribution. Current and future owners do not only have to contribute the HST on their portion of future costs but also the HST on the portion of future costs already funded, as represented by the fund balance. The impact of catching up on the HST shortfall represented by

the fund balance is impacted by the size of the balance and the time to “first critical year” (the year when the fund balance next drops to the “minimum” balance).

To give a simple illustration, imagine a condominium with only one planned expenditure of $1,000,000 required when it is ten years old, in a world with no inflation or interest.

If this condominium is brand new, it would previously have had to fund $1,000,000 over ten years, or $100,000/year. With HST, it now needs to fund $1,050,000 over ten years, or

damentals remain the same.

We recommend that condominium corporations continue to update their studies on their normal update schedule. This recommendation is justified as follows:

• The impact of the elimination of PST on underlying costs will not be known until work starts to be tendered after July 1, 2010. Prior to that time, updating the study line-by-line is no more accurate than estimating the overall impact.

• The increase related to HST can be contributed to the reserve fund for

Based on a sample of the Reserve Fund Studies the author’s firm currently has in Buildingweb, we estimate that Ontario Condominiums jointly have about $1.75 billion in their Reserve Funds. Catching up the HST on this existing balance represents approximately a $90 million cost, or about $175 per condominium unit. $105,000/year; a 5% increase.

However, if this condominium is nine years old and it has already saved up $900,000 towards this project, then in the next year it needs to fund $150,000 in one year; a 50% increase.

When interest and inflation are taken into account, the situation becomes more complex, but the underlying fun-

the one or two years prior to the next reserve fund study update as an extra contribution without having to do a new Form 15. This additional contribution will be reflected in the opening balance of the next regularly scheduled update.

Table 1 illustrates one recommended method for calculating the likely impact Winter 2009

thecondovoice

23

Table 1 Case

Recommended Interim Annual Contribution Increase

Examples

‘New’ condominium constructed in 2000 or later

5% of previously calculated ‘inflation matched’ annual contribution

2010 RFS inflation-matched contribution = $220,000 HST increase: $11,000

Constructed 1990 to 1999

5% of previously calculated ‘inflation matched’ annual contribution plus 0.5% of estimated June 30, 2010 fund balance

2010 RFS inflation-matched contribution = $220,000 June 30 balance: $640,000 HST increase: $11,000 + $3,200 = $14,200

Constructed before 1990 and first critical year beyond 2020

5% of previously calculated ‘inflation matched’ annual contribution plus 0.75% of estimated June 30, 2010 fund balance

2010 RFS inflation-matched contribution = $220,000 June 30 balance: $640,000 First critical year: 2024 HST increase: $11,000 + $4,800 = $15,800

Constructed before 1990 and first critical year sooner than 2020

Contact Reserve Fund Study Provider for guidance.

2010 RFS inflation-matched contribution = $220,000 June 30 balance: $640,000 First critical year: 2013 HST increase: contact Reserve Fund Study Provider

of HST on required annual contributions. These impacts are based on the “inflation-matched” scenario in your reserve fund study rather than the

While phased-in scenarios are feasible, it seems prudent for the increased cost burden to come into place at the same time that planned individual rebates and

Based on the same 11,000 units, we estimate that Ontario Condominiums will jointly spend about $3.75 billion from their Reserve Funds in the next five years. This represents HST payments of about $250 million (or about $500 per unit) that were not previously planned in the funds. “phased-in” scenario, as we recommend that the impact of HST be taken into account in one year, when it clearly relates to the tax change, rather than blending it in with other required increases in any sort of phased-in scenario.

24

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

personal income tax reductions (related to HST implementation) also start.

Phasing in the HST impact does not reduce the amount to be funded; it simply defers the increase to future years, when we think a Board will look foolish trying to blame the ongoing increas-

es on the previously implemented HST.

Once a corporation has calculated the likely impact, they can add this to their 2010 and 2011 budgets as a separate contribution to reserve in addition to the base contribution required by the reserve fund study and Form 15. In 2010, the increase will need to be factored by the number of HST-bearing months in the fiscal year (for a December 31st year end, this will be 6/12 months).

Reserve fund studies can simply continue to be completed according to the corporation’s normal schedule, and the board can rest assured that they have taken reasonable steps to accommodate HST in their reserve fund planning with no risks needing to be identified in status certificates. ■

Keep the Cash Flowing A Management Systems Perspective

BY BILL THOMPSON, BA, RCM, ACCI MALVERN CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

R

ecessionary times usually bring about changes. Many people find themselves without jobs, or with reduced hours and reduced income. People find themselves trying hard to make ends meet without overspending their budgets. They try to do more with less.

This personal perspective overflows into the Board room and Boards of large corporations and small ones make decisions to adjust their operations to suit the economic conditions and the perspective of their markets. Managers of condominiums see many requests from Condominium Boards of Directors that are well intentioned ways of beating the recession. Some of them are tried and true strategies in the profit oriented market, yet do not prove successful in the not for profit market of condominiums. Let’s have a look at a few examples of commonplace requests that Managers of Condominiums hear in the Board room.

Supplier terms The typical perspective of profit oriented companies is to try and find ways for the suppliers to grant longer terms for payment on anything that they supWinter 2009

thecondovoice

25

ply, which allows the receiving company to show a better cash flow and reduce the cost of borrowing to produce their end products. So, a large company may negotiate terms that enable them to retail a product whereby the product is sold long before the supplying company gets paid. That would reduce the carrying cost of the product to zero, which would maximize the profit on the sale of the product.

While this is a great strategy for a huge multinational like Wal-Mart, it would not do anything for a condominium which purchases the goods for “personal” use. In fact, by extending the terms given by the suppliers, the condominium pricing on their supplies will inevitably increase as the supplier needs to cover their additional carrying costs on the products that they are supplying.

Most good management systems are going to take into consideration that the best pricing is achieved with the fastest payment of invoices, and therefore work into their policies a system to keep the invoices paid in a timely fashion.

Contractor Bankruptcy

In the profit sector, many companies “partner” with other companies for the

26

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

production and or supply of parts and supplies which are crucial to their end product. This partnering can have huge consequences when a key “partner” company suddenly closes shop and declares bankruptcy. Therefore, many “profit” companies have strategies to avoid that problem and require financial disclosures and other protections to ensure that they are not left vulnerable to an untimely bankruptcy.

In condominiums, a good manage-ment system is going to ensure that prepayment of any contract is not done. A condominium should, almost without exception, never pay for a contract ahead of the completion of the work.

Some larger contracts will call for progress draws, but there is always a hold back which ensures that the money paid is not more than the work that has been completed. This built in protection limits the vulnerability of a condominium to a contractor bankruptcy.

If the contractor did claim bankruptcy in the middle of the job, the condominium would have underpaid for the value of the work completed. There would be no material loss, although it could become an inconvenience to the condominium owners while the Board and Management scramble to get the con-

tract released and reissued to another bidder for completion.

Another built-in protection for a large project is a performance bond. A performance bond is issued by the bonding company that essentially guarantees the performance of the contract at the bid price. Although the cost of the bond adds to the cost of the project, it is a great protection for condominiums and should be standard practice used by most engineers and project management companies.

So, once again, condominiums are covered by just following good management practice, and no special actions are necessary because of the economic conditions.

Discounted pricing

In the profit sector, it is well known that price is based upon demand and not necessarily on cost of production. As an example, a designer spring dress may sell at $500.00 in February, March and April, yet will be reduced to $300.00 in May and by the time July comes, it may clearance out at $75.00!

In tough times, the retailer knows that the number of $500.00 sales will be greatly reduced, so they may retail the

dress for $400.00 to start and slowly reduce the price until they reach the bottom in July at $75.00. We have witnessed a huge increase in “sale” pricing across the retail sector.

Condominiums, fortunately, have a steady demand for their service. The cleaning of the common areas needs to be done regardless of the economic conditions. The grass doesn’t stop growing and the roof doesn’t stop deteriorating because the economy is bad.

The condominium continues to supply its service at the same rate as it always has, and essentially the same price.

Many condominiums will go to the suppliers and ask for “recession” pricing, and sometimes they will get some type of discount on the current invoice.

If the condominium is following good Management practice, there will be a variety of suppliers competing for your business. Most Management companies have a system to ensure that at least three competitive suppliers are bidding on the condominiums needs. As the economic conditions change, the competition for your business will also change. This is commonly referred to as market pricing. During tough times, the prices are “automatically” sharpened by the suppliers as they compete to keep their sales numbers up. This is a natural result of a good management system.

If the suppliers believe that you are going to continually come back and ask for reduced pricing after they quote, then they will build in a cushion in their pricing to be able to negotiate the “right” price later. By never giving them a second chance to bid, they will put their best price in every time in order to get the business. So going to the suppliers to reduce their bid may save you money on one invoice, but it will cost you money in the long run.

Stopped Projects In the profit sector, it is sometimes a great idea to stop projects and wait for better market conditions. Expansion projects are often put on the back burn-

er during hard times. Capital projects with longer term paybacks are often shelved until the time is right.

In condominiums, there is a lot more to think about than simply the cost of the project. Condominiums are legislated by statute to carry out the maintenance and repair of the common elements.

They don’t get the luxury of deciding not fix the leaking roof, or not keeping the building up to local codes. Projects are stopped only when it is a good plan in both the short and long term. Most projects that can be stopped or delayed are Reserve type expenditures of major replacement and repair.

For instance, a project may be planned to replace the roof in 2010, but, after inspection, the estimate is that the roof can reasonably be expected to last another three years, with minor repairs.

Decisions like these are commonplace and are done regardless of economic condition. Once again, good management practice would ensure that the condominium makes the best use of its funds.

Accelerated Projects

On the opposite side of thought to stopping projects, is accelerating projects.

In the profit sector, it may be good strategy to accelerate a project that is planned down the road so that the cost of doing the project is reduced due to the recessionary pricing available.

Many profit Boards will decide that their company has the funds and the ability to expand in a recession in order to be in the best position to jump into the post recessionary market.

In condominiums, that thought process comes into the Board room quite often, and it has its merit. For instance, if the condominium was going to do an addition, alteration or improvement to the common elements, and the money was already available, it could make sense to carry it out while there is not a lot of work out there for contractors.

However, if the money is not available, the Owners will strongly object to Winter 2009

thecondovoice

27

doing an optional project at a time when they are trying to keep expenses under control.

Accelerated projects for Reserve type expenditures can sometimes make sense also. Using the roof replacement as an example again, it would make sense if the roof were replaced early to take advantage of lower competitive pricing. However, you would have to dissect the numbers closely. If the roof has a 20 year life expectancy, then accelerating the replacement by just two years would not make sense if you were not receiving a deep discount. On a cost per year basis, each year that the roof is accelerated will cost 5% based on the remaining life expectancy of the existing roof. So, to accelerate the project by just two years would require a minimum of a ten percent discount on the pricing just to break even.

It is usually more prudent to get the maximum life out of the existing components, than to prematurely replace

28

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

them. The exception to this rule is usually in the energy sector. By replacing equipment with more efficient equipment, the energy savings will result in reduced operating costs which help to offset the cost of replacement. So, sometimes it will make sense to replace that wasteful equipment early. A good management system will continually look at energy efficiencies, regardless of the economy.

Owners Expectations

In the profit sector, and the condo-minium sector alike, people expect to get more for their money during hard economic times. The consumers know that the competition for their hard earned dollar is heated up, and they shop with power and high expectations. This buyers market makes mild mannered home owners request a lot more for their maintenance dollar, and sometimes creates a more hostile environment around the condominium and in the boardroom.

Condominium Boards and Managers typically do a pretty decent job of looking after the maintenance dollar.

Unfortunately, we sometimes do a poor job of letting people know that. During tough times, a good Board will not cut the budget for communication and community fabric. These areas are crucial to ensuring that the Owners view the services of their condominium as money well spent. It is critical to communicate, and communicate often about all of the things that the condominium is doing for the Owners. If they perceive the value of their maintenance dollar as good, then they will focus their recession stress elsewhere, and the condominium can truly be a haven for them. â–

New “One-stop” Service Provides Energy Efficiency Incentive Information for Condos

BY TIM STOATE, DIRECTOR, TORONTO ATMOSPHERIC FUND t has just gotten a whole lot easier for condominium building boards and managers to tap into incentives for energy retrofits. The new TowerWise Incentives Advisor will provide a onewindow service for information on incentives from various governments, agencies and utilities.

I

This new service makes it possible to take advantage of the wide range of incentives now available for high-rise energy retrofits and to find out how these incentives can be combined to support deeper energy savings. Better yet, the service is completely free to all multi-unit residential buildings in the City of Toronto.

Incentives, of course, are really the icing on the cake for energy retrofits.

The average condominium building can reduce energy usage by 20-30% by implementing a well-thought-out energy retrofit. Even relatively new buildings will see large savings because energy efficiency has historically not been a top priority for builders.

So if your board or “green committee” has been thinking about improving energy performance to reduce costs for your building but have been reluctant to try to figure out all the different incentive programs, now is the time to act. The TowerWise Incentives Advisor will work with you and/or your manager to identify the incentives that fit your needs, to explain the potential level of support available and how to

go about applying. He can point you to programs that support expert building assessments, the implementation of electricity, gas and water conservation measures and the installation of energy efficient equipment or even the implementation of renewable energy technologies, like solar hot water. He can also provide advice on how to plan and sequence a retrofit to get the maximum benefit.

In fact, the idea for the Incentives Advisor has come directly from condo and apartment building representatives involved in the City of Toronto’s TowerWise program.

TowerWise is working to support greater energy efficiency in high-rise buildings as a way of helping the City to meet its climate-change emissions reduction objectives. For the busy condo owner, navigating through different incentive programs was seen as just too time consuming.

That’s why the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, the Greater Toronto Apartment Association, the Canadian Condominium Institute, Enbridge Gas Distribution, the Better Buildings Partnership and Toronto Water have combined forces to create the Incentives Advisor position. The Advisor will help you

Incentives Add Up! Here’s a quick look at what some of the incentive programs available in Toronto could do for your building: Source

Incentive Available

Enbridge

Up to $100,000

Toronto Water

Up to $150 per toilet replaced or $100 per high efficiency washing machine

Better Buildings Partnership

Up to 50% of project costs for electricity conservation measures

Natural Resources Canada

Up to $50,000

The bottom line: Incentives can take a big bite out of the up-front cost of an energy retrofit, while utility cost savings can cover borrowing costs and increase cash flow.

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

29

understand incentives offered by all of the partners as well as by other agencies. He’ll even assist you in navigating the applications process and securing your incentive money!

We’re also committed to helping your board to better understand the enormous upside of improving the energy performance of your building. In fact, the TowerWise Incentives Advisor can also share with you numerous case studies that show how savvy condo boards have reduced their utility bills by tens of thousands and, in some cases, well over a hundred thousand dollars a year by improving the energy performance of their buildings. With borrowing costs at a record low and the construction environment cooler than it has been in years, this is an excellent time to be embarking on a holistic building retrofit.

The incentives available to support high-rise retrofits today can take a big bite out of upfront costs. Your utility

30

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

cost savings can then pay for the costs of financing the retrofit and increase your cash flow, which can help with other building repairs or upgrades. You really can’t lose.

The TowerWise Incentives Advisor, Rob Detta Colli, is also a great sounding board for your questions and ideas.

Rob has a degree in engineering and an MBA, so he understands both the technical and financial sides of the retrofit equation.

And while there are a number of incentive programs available from different sources, the good news is that many of these can be combined to support a variety of retrofit measures: from replacing boilers, fans, chillers and lighting to adding renewable energy systems or conserving water.

With Rob’s help, you can develop a package of incentives to support a deeper retrofit that will deliver real long-term savings and greater protection against rising energy costs.

With potential returns of anywhere from 10-30% for the average condominium building, improving energy efficiency is one of the most secure and most profitable investments you can make right now.

But remember: Some incentive programs are time-limited and most have fixed budgets, so once those funds are gone, the incentive will no longer be available. That’s just one more reason to pick up the phone right now and call Rob and get started with your retrofit planning.

The TowerWise Incentives Advisor, Rob Detta Colli, can be reached at 416-450-7989 or advisor@towerwise .ca.

For more on the benefits of improving energy efficiency and how to plan an energy retrofit, see www.TowerWise .ca. ■

13TH ANNUAL CONDOMINIUM CONFERENCE

FROM THE

FOUNDATION NOVEMBER 6TH AND 7TH 2009

UP

HILTON SUITES TORONTO/MARKHAM CONFERENCE CENTRE AND SPA

The wrap-up luncheon and closing session: “Condo Law Update Supersession: Two Panels, Two Moderators and a Facilitator”, offered a new twist on the ‘grande finale’ of the conference and it was a huge hit! Congratulations and thanks to moderators Armand Conant and Bob Gardiner and facilitator, Lisa Kay for a job very well done.

he 13th Annual CCI/ACMO Joint Condominium Conference was held on November 6th and 7th at the Markham Hilton Suites Hotel. As evidenced by the highest attendance numbers to date – 778 delegates, speakers and exhibitors, the conference was a huge success!

T

The conference was officially launched on the morning of November 6th with a welcome speech presented by the Honourable Michael Chan, Minister of Immigration and MPP for the Markham riding. Also in attendance on November 6th was Jim Brownell, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. Mr. Brownell offered delegates an update from the Ministry with specific reference to the HST. The room was filled to capacity

with delegates eager to hear their messages and begin two days of learning and networking. This years’ theme of “From the Foundation Up” was extended into many of the session topics spread over the two-day period. Back by popular demand this year, were the Round Table Discussion tables first introduced at the 2008 conference. The performance on early Saturday morning by Canadian comedian Gerry Dee was another highlight of the conference, which started Saturday off on a lighter note. We extend our sincere appreciation to the 68 speakers and moderators who participated this year and all the committee members from both CCI and ACMO who contributed countless hours planning for this year’s conference.

An important part of the conference is the trade show. Delegates were treated to a wide array of products and services on display by the over ninety exhibitors who supported the conference this year. In case you missed any of them, be sure to check the conference website at www.condoconfer ence.ca for a full list of exhibitors, along with their contact information.

A sincere thanks is also offered to our conference partner, Rogers Cable. Our partnership with Rogers and their continued commitment toward condominium education is truly appreciated. The financial support they contribute significantly increases our ability to offer quality programming each year at reasonable prices.

Mark your calendars now for next year’s conference taking place on Friday, November 5th and Saturday November 6th, 2010 at the Markham Hilton Suites hotel. We hope to see you there!

See pages 32 & 33 for conference highlights

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

31

L-R: Minister Michael Chan; ACMO President, Chris Antipas; Parliamentary Assistant, Jim Brownell and CCI Toronto President, Armand Conant at the Conference opening.

Round table discussions offered small group settings to ask the experts questions on various topics.

Educational sessions were the main focus of the conference and over 12 sessions on various topics were offered this year.

The trade show offered information on new services and products as well as valuable networking time.

Photos courtesy of Arteca Photography

32

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS

2009 Conference Co-Chair and CCI President, Armand Conant welcomes delegates to the 2009 Annual Joint Conference.

CCI National President, Janice Pynn welcomes Comedian Gerry Dee on Saturday, November 7th.

ACMO President and Conference Co-Chair, Chris Antipas provides closing remarks on Saturday, November 7th.

Rogers Cable representative Adam Newhook (left) draws the name of a lucky prize winner who will take home the large screen television donated by Rogers Cable.

Closing supersession panel L-R: Moderator, Bob Gardiner (at podium), Geoff Penney, Harry Herskowitz, Brian Horlick, Carol Dirks, James Davidson and Jonathan Fine

Additional networking time was available to delegates and exhibitors during the late afternoon wine and cheese reception on Friday, November 6th.

The session on Tarion was well attended.

Photos courtesy of Arteca Photography

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

33

34

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

Aging In Place

BY DENISE LASH, B.SC., LL.B., ACCI, FCCI HEENAN BLAIKIE LLP

ith baby boomers now well into the 50’s, the 55-plus group is growing rapidly and will only continue to do so.

W

While members of this demographic are nearing retirement with some still balancing careers and families, many are expected to leave the single family housing market and move into condominiums, rental units and retirement homes. Most of these boomers set their sights on living an active retirement, which may mean finding accommodation which includes lifestyle communities with amenities geared towards this age group.

Existing condominiums which have residents that are aging, will have to address the special needs of a new world of seniors who are healthier, more active and independent than any other generation in our history and who chose to ‘age in place’.

Condominium developers who are building condominiums are now looking at this growing demographic and are addressing the requirements of the aging population in their designs of new developments.

For board members and property managers, knowing what the needs of an aging resident will be and taking steps and planning for these changes will go

a long way in protecting the condominium corporation from potential liability.

Accessibility

One of the key concerns for this age group is accessibility.

These seniors will require accessible common areas and amenities, in-suite architectural modifications and the ease of traveling outside the condominium through either public or private transportation.

Modifications to existing buildings or the planning of new construction, may mean installing railings, ergonomic door handles, simplified key systems, increased lighting, ramp systems and even altering the timing of automatic

door closures for elevators and garage, just to name a few.

Human Rights legislation, gives protection to condo owners and tenants, by providing for those individuals right to accessibility to their unit and common element areas. This legislation may impose on both condo owners (who rent their units) and condominium corporations, the requirement to retrofit areas to enable a resident to have uninhibited access to their suite and common areas.

Condominium boards should be planning for retrofits for these modifications and have funds available to do so.

Boards should be determining how accessible the amenities are to their residents and start looking at ways to make them more accessible.

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

35

Aging In Place Checklist 1.

Look at accessibility to the suite and in the common areas

2.

Get information about emergency contacts and other family members from all residents

3.

Ensure corporation has appropriate insurance coverage.

4.

Review residents needs on an ongoing basis through newsletters, special meetings and the annual general meeting.

5.

36

Review condominium documentation regarding caregivers, scooters, wheelchairs, parking and alterations.

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

In addition, transportation needs for residents may consist of relocating parking spaces, however, boards should look at offering some type of shuttle bus system for residents to go grocery shopping, visit doctors or for nights out for social events. Other services which could be offered or arranged are meal or medication deliveries. Condominium boards and managers should now be thinking in terms of these conveniences and services and may want to incorporate these costs into the annual budget.

Offering these types of services will attract potential purchasers who are thinking about the amenities they will need as they continue to age.

Those condominiums that establish a community which has all the services in place and accessible common areas will not only benefit the residents but will avoid future potential liability issues or claims relating to accessibility and accommodating the requirements of its aging residents.

Condominium Documentation

The standard and existing condominium documentation will now require changes to allow for accommodation of the needs of its aging residents.

The Declaration, By-laws and Rules which typically do not allow additional occupants to reside in the units, such as caregivers, and often impose the “single family� restriction should be amended. Devices which assist residents such as motorized scooters and wheelchairs, should be addressed in rules to allow the parking and storage of those items to give greater flexibility.

Resident Information Condominium boards and property managers will be left to deal with some of the issues that will arise as residents age. They will need to address sensitive issues where a resident develops

mental or health problems, such as Alzheimer’s or dementia.

These concerns can place that resident or others at risk and there will be a need to have systems in place to deal with such events, including special training and educational sessions by professionals to know how to properly deal with those situations effectively. Boards and property management should be obtaining information upfront from the resident/tenant as to who to contact in an emergency, and contact information for other family members or friends.

Situations may exist in which residents will no longer be able to care for themselves in their unit. Condominium corporations who have residents that may pose a risk to themselves or others, could also be faced with potential liability where that resident injures themselves or causes harm to others. It is therefore, essential that upfront information is obtained with details as to various individuals that can be contacted to look after that resident.

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

Social Activities The new communities that will stem from the aging population will place greater emphasis on social activities and building stronger communities to support this aging group. Boards should look at creating these communities by establishing centres and providing features that will promote more social activities for these residents who need companionship and a feeling of community, many of whom will be residents who do not have partners or spouses residing with them.

Our communities are now changing and in the next few years condominiums will be facing new challenges.

Now is the time to start thinking about it and to start preparing. ■

• • • • • • • • • • •

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)

832-6614

Toll-free (877)

253-3648

49 Elm Street, Suite 201, Toronto, Ontario

www.whiterosejanitorial.com

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

37

SUMMA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING

“Your condominium deserves personal attention and service.”

Over 25 years experience!

We provide Professional Condominium Property Management with attention to detail. Your property is important to us! Regular on-site visits and inspections, attendance at all meetings. We are available to be personally contacted by Board Members at almost any time – not just ‘business hours’.

Expect Superior Service and a commitment to quality property management no matter what size your condominium is!

At Summa we take pride in managing your property.

416.913.7990 propman@summapm.com www.summapm.com

When experience and quality counts!

38

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

Want to Pass a New Pet Rule?

Prepare to be Challenged!

BY MICHAEL PASCU, BA, LL.B. FINE AND DEO BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS

s a director, you are no doubt aware that the unit owners and residents in your condominium corporation love their pets.

Unfortunately, this also means that they are likely to challenge any attempt to “interfere” with their pets and that such challenges could be fierce. Therefore, before passing any pet rule, a board should carefully consider the purpose of the rule and whether it is appropriately drafted to avoid or at least minimize potential challenges.

A

Potential challenges could come from three fronts, namely: a. that the rule is not consistent with the requirements of Section 58 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”); b. that the rule is unreasonable; and c. that the rule is contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Let us look closer at the potential challenges and how they may be addressed.

The requirements of Section 58(1) of the Act

Fundamentally, rules are not valid unless they are passed for a purpose that is consistent with the requirements of Sub-section 58(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”), being either: a. to promote the safety, security or welfare of the owners and of the

property and assets of the corporation; or b. to prevent unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the common elements, the units or the assets of the corporation.

If the purpose of the proposed rule does not appear to fall under either of these two categories, then the rule is invalid.

For example, if the board is considering a complete ban on dogs because the board considers that a dog-free building would be more desirable from a lifestyle or property values perspective, then it should not pass a rule for this purpose. Such a ban may still be imposed, but only by way of amending the declaration and with appropriate grandfathering provisions. If the corporation already has a no-pets rule, then a board should be aware of the vulnerability of the rule to legal challenges and should consider inserting the no-pets provision in its declaration.

Reasonableness Test Even if the proposed pet rule falls under one of the two above-mentioned categories, pursuant to Sub-section 58(2) of the Act, the rule must also be reasonable.

How exactly does a board ensure that the proposed rule is “reasonable”?

Unfortunately, whether a rule is reasonable or not is ultimately determined by the judge or arbitrator reviewing the rule (if the rule is legally challenged).

However, a general guideline is that a rule must address a specific problem with a specific solution that is rational, fair and neither too broad nor too restrictive.

For example, if a board is contemplating a pet rule because it is concerned about dogs soiling the common element areas, then a rule containing a blanket ban of dogs would be considered too Winter 2009

thecondovoice

39

broad and intrusive, as not all dog owners allow their dogs to soil the common element areas. A more reasonable rule would require the residents to clean up after their pets and permit the corporation to do it at their cost if they fail to do so. This rule could be coupled with a rule that would allow a board or property manager to deem a dog to be a nuisance and require its permanent removal from the premises, in the event that the dog owner persistently allows his or her dog to soil the common elements.

As well, for example, if a board is contemplating a pet rule because of problems with large dogs intimidating or threatening residents, then a rule banning all dogs would likely be considered too broad and intrusive. However, a rule requiring dogs to be leashed and supervised at all times when on the common elements, coupled with a weight restriction on the dogs, may be considered reasonable (the court has already considered a 25 pound weight limit to be reasonable).

Generally speaking, any attempt to deal with problems caused by certain types of pets by way of a blanket ban of those types of pets would likely be considered unreasonable (unless a board can actually satisfy the judge or arbitrator, as the case may be, that the ban was the only way to address that particular problem).

The Ontario Human Rights Code Even if the proposed pet rule meets the requirements of the Act, it may still not be enforceable against certain unit owners and residents in the corporation.

The corporation has a duty pursuant to the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”) to accommodate the needs of handicapped residents and the Code defines the term “handicap” very broadly to include any degree of disability, mental or physical. A board, therefore, must be careful in both the drafting of the rule (to avoid direct or indirect discrimination) and the

enforcement of the rule (to avoid indirect discrimination).

With respect to enforcement, a board should be aware that some people keep pets for therapeutic purposes, meaning that the pets are prescribed or intended to be used in aid of a disability. There have been a number of cases where unit owners challenged pet bans on the basis that they had mental disabilities and their respective pets were required for medical purposes. Although each case was dealt with on its own merits, it appears that the courts are prepared to exercise discretion and refuse to enforce a “no pets” rule in circumstances where enforcing it would result in real harm to the pet owner.

In one case, the court accepted that clinical depression can constitute a “mental disorder” (which is a handicap within the Code) and that a part of the owner’s treatment was the emotional support provided by her cat. As a result, the court concluded that the cat was a “therapy utility animal” and that its

Morrison Financial Services Limited is pleased to announce that Lisa Kay has joined our firm as Director of Marketing and Sales. Lisa has a degree in economics from the University of Western Ontario and has been working in the financial industry for 15 years. Lisa has been engaged in the condo industry for the last 6 years and has been involved with many condo boards and unit owners to help orchestrate loans for repairs and energy retrofits. She is a director of Toronto CCI and sits on the ACMO Associates Committee where she was awarded the distinction of “Associate of the Year” for 2007 and 2009.

To discuss condominium financing contact Lisa at (416) 391-3535.

40

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

removal would constitute discrimination against the owner because of a handicap.

Even in the absence of a “mental disorder”, the courts appear to bend backwards to assist owners if they are very ill. In one case, the court accepted the evidence that the owner was quite ill, and although there was no evidence that the owner suffered from depression or that her dog was a “therapy utility animal”, the court nonetheless considered that this was an “extraordinary case” that called for the exercise of discretion in not enforcing the rule against the owner. That said, in other cases where an owner suffered some depression but not severe depression, the courts have been less inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the owner. The problem, however, is that it is not clear where the courts draw the line.

A board, therefore, should be sensitive to the potential effects of a pet rule on owners who rely on their pets as part of a therapeutical program. This does not mean that a board should automatically decide not to enforce the rule against those owners or residents who claim that their respective pets are needed for therapeutic purposes. A board has the duty to enforce the corporation’s rules and therefore should carefully exercise its discretion not to enforce a particular rule. This means, among other things, that a board should assess the medical evidence presented and seek legal advice, if necessary, before deciding how to proceed.

Conclusion Many consider their pets to be special and accordingly, there is always a high risk that freshly passed pet rules may be fiercely challenged. A board must be sensitive to that and should avoid descending into the gladiator pit with unit owners and residents over their pets unless it is well armed and ready to do battle. ■

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

41

CONDO OF THE YEAR The Masters, Y.C.C. 266 at 288 Mill Road, Etobicoke BY ‘THE MASTERS’ BOARD OF DIRECTORS

CCI Toronto is thrilled to announce that The Masters, Y.C.C. 266 has been announced as the Second quarter finalist of the annual Condo of the Year Award. The following article was written as part of the corporation’s submission for entry to the contest. Our congratulations are extended to YCC #266!

Further details on this contest may be found on the CCI-T website at www.ccitoronto.org.

The 2010 annual grand prize winner will be selected from amongst the four quarter finalists in the early fall of 2010 and will be announced at the CCI Toronto Annual General Meeting in November 2010.

42

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

Good Governanace

Introduction The Masters, Y.C.C. 266 at 288 Mill Rd. Etobicoke, Ontario, has been in existence since 1975.

Only four architectural designs like it in the world! It’s almost like being on permanent vacation when you reside in any of the 498 uniquely-designed twostorey, split-level or bungalow suites situated on 11 acres of award-winning landscape, adjacent to the stunning Markland Wood Golf Club. The Masters is close to all major highways and amenities but far enough away to still retain the tranquil sounds of nature.

The success of any business – and this 34-year-old Condominium Corporation is considered a business depends on the strengths of the stakeholders. The Masters has been most fortunate over the years to have three factors working in its favour.

First of all, the commitment, integrity, professionalism and forward thinking of the eight elected, dedicated Board of Directors, ensures that quality of life for residents remains in the forefront of all major decisions. In addition, an extensive organization of nine committees enables many others to share in the decision-making process. Third, and very important to governance, is the knowledge and expertise of a full-time, experienced Registered Condominium Manager (R.C.M.).

for high-rise buildings, the Energy Committee had already thoroughly investigated this matter, concluding that it would not be advantageous to The Masters.

Yes, there have been challenges – implementing an assessment in 2007 to reconstruct the 800-stall garage and replace the mechanical components of eight elevators comes to mind. Yet, thanks to the three components of this success story, a quality community continues to thrive for all 1300 residents today and well into the future.

Forward Thinking

Currently, our Communications Committee has launched an extensive campaign towards exemption of contracted services from the proposed provincial HST. If successful, this will save all condominium owners in the province millions of dollars in the years ahead.

In the past year, The Masters has teamed with the Ministry of Natural Resources and is implementing a program to support an endangered wildlife species that resides on our property.

Social Fabric of the Community

The Masters incorporates a wealth of social and sport facilities not found in most condominiums.

Very active bridge, book and art clubs, in addition to separate well-equipped rooms for carpentry, music practice, painting, hobbies, two party rooms and library are just part of the social fabric.

Plenty of socializing also occurs along the 400m walking path on the fabulous grounds and while sitting on the benches enjoying the Japanese garden or watching the children enjoy the playscape.

The mix of young and older condo owners is well served in sport/fitness areas. Three new asphalt, floodlit tennis courts and relaxing indoor and outdoor salt water pools overlook the golf

As an older condominium it would have been easy, for example, to say that excelling in recycling was impossible, after all the building went up in the 1970s when recycling was unforeseen.

Today, The Masters boasts a 51% waste diversion rate – Toronto’s highest for a multi-residential building.

Before the Province considered making individual hydro meters mandatory

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

43

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

Hands-On Management Individually Designed and Tailored To Meet And Exceed Your Communities Needs For more information, please contact: Gary Atkin, RCM, ACCI Matthew Atkin, RCM, CMOC, ARM, CPM or Nathan Atkin, B.A., RCM

G.S. Atkin Property Management Specialist Inc. One Shady Lawn Court Mississauga, Ontario L5N 1H2 24-Hour Emergency Line (905)-567-6820 Direct Line: (416)-258-6011 Fax: (905)-567-6930 Website: www.gsa-pm.com Email: info@gsa-pm.com

44

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

Environmental Concerns

course, completing the resort-like ambience. Well-used, inviting facilities for working out, squash, basketball, pool, billiards, table tennis, and golf practice are all centered round the stunning clubhouse lounge. As well, residents can indulge regularly in on-site Yoga, Pilates, Reiki, Tai Chi, Aqua-fit and Ballroom Dancing activities.

Energy Related Initiatives Energy Conservation has been a major focus at this electrically-heated complex for years. The Energy Committee has researched potential projects ranging from Smart Meters, to garage and common element lighting, through solar and geothermal heating and cooling systems. The recent conversion of garage and clubhouse lighting to energy-saving fixtures is already showing a successful payback.

The Masters has been an active participant in the City of Toronto’s ‘Target 70’ waste diversion campaign, volunteering to join the pilot program for organics collection in multi-residential buildings in 2005. The property manager and Recycling Committee have undertaken an extensive, ongoing education campaign to encourage residents to participate in recycling and organics programs. In the last year alone the corporation has reduced landfill waste from 36 to 12 cubic yards per week.

It’s estimated that The Masters is currently diverting 51% of waste compared to 13% for the average multi-family building in Toronto. The Masters has recently been used as a model by a recycling consulting firm which referred to it as the best building they’ve seen in terms of garbage management and recycling.

Conversion of the swimming pools to salt water from chlorine has also addressed an important environmental issue.

Effective Use of Committees This corporation could not function effectively without relying on the energy, enthusiasm and commitment of the members of nine strong, active committees: Human Resources, Security, Finance, Communications, Pool and Sports, Tendering, Recycling, Energy, and Recreation – each portfolio chaired

by a member of the Board of Directors.

Supported by the participation of interested and informed residents, their time and energy-consuming efforts ensure

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

45

that the Board at its monthly meeting has current, real facts and figures to work with in order to determine the direction to be taken on any issue.

These active committees provide a vehicle for innovation, fiscally sound governance, and participation by members of the community in the operation of The Masters.

Communications

“The Masters Memorandum”, the 4page publication that appears monthly on all resident’s doorsteps, includes regular columns from the board, management and committee chairs, and keeps residents updated on important issues in their corporation and the adjacent community. A ticker-tape across

the lobby monitoring TV channel and strategically placed notice boards provide daily reminders of time-sensitive events such as water shutdowns and activity sign-ups. For more detailed analyses of issues like the budget or recycling programs, town hall meetings are hosted by the board in the clubhouse lounge several times a year.

Everyone has received a copy of “Guide For Residents”, The Masters’ handbook of information about everything from pool hours to operation of the heating system and all new residents receive an updated Welcome package of useful information for newcomers. An interactive website is in the planning stage.

Consistency

Being aware of what’s going on in their corporation, having confidence in consistent, forward thinking governance, and enjoying many opportunities to participate and provide input enables people to feel part of The Masters community. It is a major reason why there is less than 6% turnover each year and why more than 90% of units remain owner-occupied. The Masters is a condominium where both residents and staff establish connections and stay for a long time, many dating back to the beginning in 1975.

The Board of Directors are as follows: President: Marlene Cater (Chair, Human Resources Committee) Vice President: Phil Hebert (Security Liaison) Treasurer: Gord Cummings (Chair, Finance Committee) Secretary: Gerry Gibson (Chair, Communications Committee) Director: Don Ferguson (Chair, Sports Committee) Director: Bernard Rummel (Chair, Recycling & Energy Committee) Director: Fran Trozzolo (Chair, Recreation Committee) Director: Bruce Jackson (Chair, Planning & Tendering Committee) ■

46

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

CCI Toronto Legislative Update on the HST

BY ARMAND CONANT, B.ENG, LL.B., D.E.S.S. (SORBONNE) PRESIDENT, CCI TORONTO AND CO-CHAIR CCI/ACMO GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE lot has happened on the legislative front with respect to our efforts on the HST since our last update on page 33 of the fall CondoVoice. On September 18th over 400 people crowed the venue at the ACMO luncheon to hear MPP Yasir Naqvi, John Warren and myself present on the issue of the HST. On October 14 our joint CCI/ACMO Government Relations committee members met with senior government officials to present our suggested solutions to reduce the impact of the GST on condominium owners. On November 16th ACMO Vice President, Dean McCabe and myself attended on stage at Queen’s Park with opposition leader, Tim Hudak

A

to oppose the HST and later attended the Legislative Assembly when the government formally introduced the HST Bill. Dean McCabe was later interviewed by Global TV in the hallways of Queen’s Park and I subsequently appeared on Global TV’s Focus Ontario show with host Sean Mallen to discuss the inequities the HST would create for condominium owners. (See video recap http://www.globaltoronto .com/focusontario/pastshows/index .html). On November 19th, the CCI Toronto Chapter offered a complimentary HST update session to all members. Presenter, Sally Thompson, provided a look at the impact the HST will have on reserve fund balances, John

Warren provided information on how the HST will impact the operating budget of condominium corporations and I provided an update on the ongoing work of the Government Relations Committee in dealing with the government.

Our work is not yet done, but I would like to thank all those CCI and ACMO volunteers who are working hard on this issue on the behalf of all condominium owners – Chris Antipas, Gordon Chong, Brian Horlick, Dean McCabe, Sally Thompson, John Warren ■

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

47

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 www.dryerfighters.net to learn why clothes dryer fire prevention is required.

Dennis Monk: (647) 236-5643 Randy Mason: (647) 239-8787 Office: (905) 761-1761 Email: dryerfighters@hotmail.com

48

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

Are Noisy Neighbours Driving You Crazy?

How to Reduce Unwanted Noise in Your Building FROM CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION (CMHC) eople who live in apartments generally accept a certain level of noise from their neighbours and from outside as part of their urban living experience. But there are limits to the amount of noise anyone can tolerate. When that threshold is passed, your once peaceful and tranquil home can suddenly become a source of stress and anxiety.

Your tolerance for noise will depend on a number of factors ranging from your building’s soundproofing, the type and level of noise and even the time of day it is generated. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) offers the following tips on how to reduce excessive or unwanted noise in your building:

P

• Get to know noisy neighbours, and make them aware of how their activities are affecting others. Speak with other neighbours to see if the noise is bothering anyone else, and consider adopting a joint strategy. Discuss ways to reduce objectionable noise, such as laying down carpets, moving stereo equipment away from shared walls and agreeing on reasonable hours for noisy activities. If all else fails, consult with your building management or condo board.

• If your building’s elevators, refuse chutes, garage door openers, air conditioning units or other mechanical devices are the problem, ask the management to investigate the problem. Solutions may include ensuring that motors are mounted on springs or pads to reduce vibrations, air conditioning compressors are located away from operable windows, or restricting the hours of the day or days of the week when noisier devices operate. Better isolating those devices from occupants by insulating and air sealing walls may help as well.

• To reduce noise coming in through openings or gaps in your walls, place gaskets behind electrical outlet cover plates. Check to see if electrical switches and outlets in common walls are offset from those on the other side of the wall so noise can pass directly through them from one side to the other. Carefully caulk the joint under your baseboards.

• If noise associated with people speaking frequently comes in from outside the building, ask management to take measures to discourage loitering and other after-hours activ-

ities. For other exterior noise sources, contact a bylaw officer to inform you on noise regulations in your area.

• Inside your apartment, consider adding more or heavier fabrics and upholstery to absorb more sound. If the windows in your building are to be replaced, encourage management to install windows with a high Sound Transmission Class (STC) performance rating and make sure they open away from any sources of noise.

• If serious noise problems in your building persist, ask management to retain an acoustical consultant to study the problem and recommend solutions.

For more information or a free copy of the “About Your Apartment” fact sheet Reducing Noise in Your Apartment, or other fact sheets on owning, maintaining or renovating your home, visit our Web site at www.cmhc.ca or call CMHC at 1-800-668-2642. For more than 60 years, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has been Canada’s national housing agency, and a source of objective, reliable housing expertise. ■ Winter 2009

thecondovoice

49

Adequate Reserve Fund – Defined!

BY SALLY THOMPSON, P.ENG. HALSALL ASSOCIATES LTD.

he Condominium Act in Ontario has the following section on funding levels for Reserve Funds:

T

“94 Plan for future funding (8)Within 120 days of receiving a reserve fund study, the board shall review it and propose a plan for the future funding of the reserve fund that the board determines will ensure that, within a prescribed period of time and in accordance with the prescribed requirements, the fund will be adequate for the purpose for which it was established.”

However, the Act does not define “adequate”.

The Canadian Condominium Institute – Toronto and Area Chapter and the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario have recently prepared a joint legislative brief to the government with recommended changes to the Condominium Act. As part of this work, a sub-committee has met to come up with a definition of “adequate” funding. A consensus has now been reached.

While it is not yet in the Condominium Act, we expect that consistent adoption of the definition by industry will influence the government to incorporate the 50

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

definition into the Act.

There have been two “camps” in the industry since 2001; the “Inflationmatched” camp and the “no deficit” camp.

The “inflation-matched” believers argue that the intention of condominium Reserve Fund Planning is to fairly distribute the cost of repairing and replacing the common elements over past, current and future owners.

Creating a funding program that is based on limiting annual contribution increases to no more than inflation achieves this goal.

The “no deficit” believers argue that without “adequate” defined, one must look at adequate per dictionary definitions, meaning “sufficient” or “just enough” rather than “plenty”. In the extreme, this could mean that a corporation could simply contribute each year an amount equal to the planned expenditure in the coming year. While this is clearly not the intent of the Act, the lack of a definition for adequate does mean that this interpretation is not out of the realm of reason.

At the industry forum, which included many reserve fund providers, lawyers, auditors and property managers (see list on page 51), the issue was argued at

length. Key points were:

• Contributions should be spread as evenly as possible over all generations of owners over the service life of the building.

• Some phase-in is reasonable if the negative impact on future owners is determined to be minor when compared to the “margin of error” of the study and/or when the bulk of the spending is more than about 20 years away.

• It is not fair to current owners to implement a large increase in one step without giving them notice of the impending changes. Phasing-in over a number of years provides them (as well as potential unit purchasers) notice of the change.

The recommendation coming out of the forum is that section 94(8) be changed to the following: “94 Plan for future funding (8) Within 120 days of receiving a reserve fund study, the board shall review it and propose a plan for the future funding of the reserve fund that the board determines will ensure that, within a prescribed period of time and in accordance with the prescribed requirements, the fund will be adequate for the

purpose for which it was established. In this context, adequate means that the year-over-year per cent change in the total contribution for each year of the 45 year term of the study is no greater than the assumed inflation rate except in the first three years where an increase greater than inflation is permitted and that the closing balance in any year in the 45 year term of the study does not go below zero.”

Allowing a three year phase-in period with increases greater than inflation softens the blow of required increases, provides time for unit owners to accommodate the required increase (or choose to sell their unit), but also prevents corporations from running long phase-in periods which simply defer contributions unfairly to future owners. This would apply to all condominiums (built before or after 2001).

You might also have noticed that we are recommending that the cash flow analysis be extended to 45 years, compared to the current 30 years so that longer service life elements are captured in the early studies.

While this notion of a three year phasein period followed by inflation-matched increases is not yet law, by defining and communicating “industry-consensus”,

CCI and ACMO present this as guidance for Corporations to follow until such time that the Ontario Condominium Act incorporates a definition for “adequate”.

List of Participants (invitations were extended to many firms, the following contributed either by attending the industry forum and/or by providing feedback one-on-one):

John Warren and Brian Antman Adams & Miles LLP

Kim Coulter Coulter Building Consultants Ltd.

Sally Thompson and Sean Allman Halsall Associates Ltd. Lucy Dias Del Property Management Gina Cody Construction Control Inc.

Chris Antipas Brookfield Residential Services Ltd.

Peter Harris Harris, Chong & Crewe LLP

Don Sawyer Canlight Hall Management Inc.

Nancy Longuiera Morrison Hershfield Ltd.

Stephen Chesney Parker, Carber & Chesney

Peter Leong Cochrane Engineering Ltd.

Michael Le Page and R. Rupnarian Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. John Deacon Deacon, Spears, Fedson & Montizambert

Richard Weldon Carson, Dunlop Weldon & Associates

Tony Gatto Tony P. Gatto Professional Corporation

Harold Cipin Times Property Management Inc.

Ralph Orvitz Ralph Lando Orvitz Chartered Accountant

John AbedRabbo Polyzotis and Co. LLP Chartered Accountant Park Thompson Furlong and Company LLP Tom Park Golder Associates Ltd.

Trisha Neimeyer and John Juffs GRG Building Consultants Inc.

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

■

51

52

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

HST Implementation Measures Prepayments

BY BRIAN ANTMAN, C.A. In advance of the pending transition by Ontario to a harmonized sales tax “(HST)”, a number of residential condominium corporations are considering prepaying for goods to be delivered or services to be provided on or after July 1, 2010 to avoid the additional 8% Ontario portion of the HST. On October 14, 2009, the Ontario Ministry of Revenue issued Information Notice No. 3 outlining the transitional rules which will determine how the additional 8% Ontario portion of the HST will apply to expenditures between October 15, 2009 and June 30, 2010 which contain charges for goods to be delivered or services to be provided on or after July 1, 2010.

The transitional rules announced by Ontario with respect to invoices due or paid in certain periods are summarized as follows:

er date is earlier. A partial input tax credit may be available to those residential condominium corporation’s that are registered for GST and engaged in making taxable supplies (such as renting their guest suites).

• May 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010 – The additional 8% HST will be charged by the supplier on invoices in this period for that portion of the invoice that relates to goods to be delivered or services to be provided on or after July 1, 2010.

• July 1, 2010 – Full implementation date for the HST. The HST will generally apply to all goods and services that are currently subject to GST. It applies to goods and services provided on or after July 1, 2010 (unless

90% or more of the goods are delivered or services provided prior to July 2010).

• October 31, 2010 – The latest date self-assessed HST will be due.

Similar transitional rules are also expected to apply to leasing, licencing or other similar payments or arrangements even when those contracts were signed prior to October 15, 2009.

In summary, unless the legislation, when it is tabled changes these transitional rules, there does not appear to be any advantage to a residential condominium corporation prepaying for goods and services to be delivered on or after July 1, 2010. ■

• October 15, 2009 to April 30, 2010 – Suppliers will not be required to charge the additional 8% HST on invoices during this period but residential condominium corporations will be required to self-assess the 8% HST on that portion of invoices in this period that relates to goods to be delivered or services to be provided on or after July 1, 2010.

Commercial condominium corporations that are eligible to claim full input tax credits should not be affected by this transitional rule. The amount of HST self-assessed will be due by the due date the condominium corporation’s GST return for the reporting period that includes July 1, 2010 or October 31, 2010, whichev-

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

53

Members News

Bob Girard Receives FCCI Designation Long time CCIToronto member and current CCI Toronto Treasurer, Bob Girard received the distinguished honour of receiving his FCCI designation at the CCI National Awards Dinner held on Friday November 6th, 2009 at the Markham Hilton Suites Hotel.

Bob is a Graduate of Concordia University with a Bachelor of Commerce Degree.

He has served on the Board of Directors of YCC #50 for the past 18 years, 16 of them as President. He is a Director on the Board of Directors of the Canadian Condominium Institute Toronto Chapter currently serving as Treasurer and Chair of the Special Projects Committee. Through his work on the Special Projects Committee Bob has overseen the semi-annual Networking Dinner forums for condo board members and has also spent considerable time and effort keeping members up to date on the latest developments with respect to the City of Toronto waste levy fees and how they will apply to condominiums.

Bob has completed the Condominium Management Course at Humber College with Honours, and has successfully completed the RCM exam and the Mediation Course within Humber College’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Certificate Program. He has also completed the Level 200 and Level 300 CCI Directors Courses and has attended many of the recent CCI and ACMO seminars, luncheons, presentations and joint seminars.

Bob is currently working as a Condominium Property Manager with AA Property Management.

The Toronto Chapter is proud to nominate Bob Girard as a Fellow of the Canadian Condominium Institute to recognize his significant contributions toward the industry.

54

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

Dean McCabe Receives ACCI Designation

Congratulations also go out to Dean McCabe for earning his ACCI Designation in Property Management. This designation was presented to Dean at the CCI National Annual General Meeting held on Friday November 6th, 2009.

Dean has been a property manager for 15 years, and is currently a R e g i o n a l Manager with Brookfield Residential Services.

He earned his RCM designation in 2003 and currently serves as Vice President of the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario. Dean has been a frequent presenter at various CCI and ACMO courses, seminars and conferences. Dean also serves on the joint CCI/ACMO Government Relations Committee and is currently actively involved in working with the Government to explore ways in which the implementation of the HST can be amended to ease the impact on condominium owners.

On behalf of everyone at the CCI Toronto office, we wish all of our readers a wonderful Holiday Season and a Healthy and Successful 2010!

Kindly note that the CCI offices will be closed from 5:00 pm on December 23rd and will re-open on Monday, January 4th, 2010 at 9:00 am.

Members News

October 09 Networking Dinner

BY BOB GIRARD, B.COMM, RCM, ACCI, FCCI The latest CCI Toronto Networking Dinner held on October 28th, 2009 at the Novotel Hotel was attended by a total of 28 Directors: 2 condos with three members attending, 3 condos with two members attending sitting at different tables along with remaining singles and one moderator per table.

In addition, a presentation was made by Gerald Grant, an environmental and waste management consultant presenting an unbiased review of Condo Corporations Waste and Recycling program.

Watch your mail and/or check the CCI Toronto website for the date of the next Networking Dinner coming in the spring of 2010!

Upon leaving, favourable comments were received by many regarding the rotation of moderators. ■

Discussions were lively and the topics were varied. A recap on some the topics presented included:

• Upcoming CCI Toronto Chapter AGM on November 19th, five positions available on the Board • Condo course 201, November 21st, Board Governance

• HST and CCI initiative lobbying for “ phased in Reserve Fund top up “ and the available petition against the Bill to be brought forward April 2010

• HRTC eligible expenses do not include agreements entered into prior to January 28, 2009

• Consultant retained to obtain “ Opinion Letter “ from Provincial Fire Marshal for staff managed floor by floor waste diversion where “ push button “ chute sorter retrofit is not possible or if chute closed • CCI is currently investigating how to support the GTAA litigation with the City of Toronto, what we can do if anything, conducting our due diligence

Appreciation is extended to all dinner moderators who joined me that evening: Lisa Kay, Brian Horlick, Henry Jansen, and Gerald Grant. During dinner Directors interacted with each other along with the moderators at their table. Moderators were rotated three times to ensure that everyone had an opportunity to interface with several moderators.

DONNA SWANSON ACCI, FRI

Real Estate Brokerage

For your Real Estate Needs call: 416-515-2121

• Real Estate Broker of Record - s peci al i zi ng i n Co ndo mi ni um Sal es since 1982 • Current condominium Owner, Pas t Pres i dent and Di recto r • ACCI - An Associate of the Canadian Condominium Institute • Pas t Di recto r of Toronto Chapter of CCI • FRI - Fellow of the Real Estate Institute of Canada and past

Director of Toronto Chapter of REIC

Email: donnaswanson@sympatico.ca Winter 2009

thecondovoice

55

New Members CCI Toronto Welcomes the Following New Members Individual Members B.M Anderson J. Anderson A. Burris P. Hanebury J. Harris M . Kwan J. Tucker P. Warner L. Wilkinson

Michael Colligan Lighting Solutions Nicole Yeelit MyBuilding.Org

Nancy Moran Spinnacker Recycling Corp.

Corporate Members

DSCC # 0227 MTCC # 0792 MTCC # 0880 PCC # 0613 PSCC # 0846 THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL CO LLP TSCC # 1816 TSCC # 2009 TSCC # 2016 TSCC # 2022 YCC # 0303 YCC # 0316 YRCC # 0601 YRCECC # 1153 YRSCC # 1156

Bradley Chaplick Fine and Deo Barristers and Solicitors

Jeff Jeffcoatt Construction Control Inc. Dave Moore Pretium Engineering Limited Bonnie Roberts Jones Heenan Blaikie LLP

Carlos Santos Property Services Inc.

Tom Chessman City of Toronto, BBP

Stephanie Wilkins Dust Busters Home and Office Cleaning Inc. Laura Louizos Ecolo Toronto

Adam Altobelli Geofocus Mould Solutions thecondovoice

Liborio Gurreri Tor Can Waste Management Inc.

Professional Members

New Trade Members

56

Chris Eichhorn International Leak Detection

Winter 2009

Vadim Seagal Brookfield Residential Services

Mark Shedden Atrens Counsel Insurance Brokers

Robert Stevens, Bayshore Property Management Inc.

58

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

Upcoming Events

Mark Your Calendars Condo 101 Course Dates & Times:

Saturday January 16th, 2010 from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m., or Thursday June 3rd, 2010 from 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m.

Location:

Novotel North York Hotel

Cost:

$60 for CCI Members and $95 for Non Members plus GST

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

Level 200 Course Dates & Times:

Saturday, February 20th and 27th, 2010 from 10:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Location:

Novotel North York Hotel

Cost:

$190.48 plus GST for CCI Members and $261.90 plus GST for Non Members

This informative four night or two day course is a must attend for all new Directors or Condominium Residents who want a better understanding of the way Condominiums function and should operate. Topics covered include: The Directors' Role, Insurance, Property Management, Budgets and Finance, Reserve Funds, Physical Building Management and Effective Meetings.

Level 201 Course Dates & Times:

Saturday April 10th, 2010 from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m.

Location:

Novotel North York Hotel

Cost:

$95 for CCI Members and $125 for Non Members plus GST

This half-day course will teach Directors all they need to know about proper Governance and how to ensure a well functioning Board. The course will also provide valuable information on how to run effective condominium meetings. Topics covered will include: Board Confidentiality, Conflict of Interest, Notice of Meetings, Proxies, Nominations and Elections, Role of the Board and Management, By-laws and Rules, Directors Code of Ethics and more!

Level 300 Course Dates & Times:

Tuesday May 4th, 11th, 18th and 25th, 2010

Location:

Novotel North York Hotel

Cost:

$190.48 plus GST for Members and $261.90 plus GST for Non Members

Designed for the dedicated condominium director, the CCI Level 300 course will run for four consecutive Tuesday evenings from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. beginning May 4th, 2010 through May 25th, 2010. Upon completion of the course, participants should understand all aspects of reserve funds, major repairs and replacement, financial management, common problems and solutions, legal responsibilities‌ and in the last session, learn about mediation/arbitration and the new enforcement remedies available under the Condominium Act, 1998.

To register for these CCI Toronto courses and/or to obtain further information, please visit the website at www.ccitoronto.org or call the office at (416) 491-6216.

Winter 2009

thecondovoice

59

List of Advertisers A.R. Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 ACMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Adams & Miles LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Atrens Counsel Insurance Brokers Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Atrens Management Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Bayshore Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Brady & Seidner Associates Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Brookfield Residential Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Brown & Beattie Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Carma Industries Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Certified Clean Air Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Comfort Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Condominium Living Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Construction Control Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 Coulter Building Consultants Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Criterium Jansen Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 D-Tech (Nexus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Davroc Consulting Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17, 57 & 62 Donna Swanson Real Estate Brokerage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Dryerfighters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Elia Associates Barristers and Solicitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 Enbridge Electric Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Enerplan Building Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Esquire Management Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Fine & Deo Barristers & Solicitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Firenza Plumbing & Heating Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Fogler, Rubinoff LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 G4S Security Services Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Genivar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Geofocus Mould Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Gerald R. Genge Building Consultants Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 GSA Property Mana gement Specialists Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Gulesserian Associates Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Heenan Blaikie LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Horlick Levitt Barristers & Solicitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 ICC Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 J. Edick & Sons Landscape Contractors Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 J.J. Molnar Realty Advisors Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 LAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Larlyn Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 M & E Consulting Engineers Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Mareka Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Markham Garage Doors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Metro Group of Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 Morrison Financial Services Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Morrison Hershfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Nadlan-Harris Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Ontario Screen Systems Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Pillar Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Pro-House Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Provident Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Rainbow International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Regal Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 Royal Grande Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Samuel Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 ScotiaMcLeod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 SR Wise Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Stratacon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Summa Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Suncorp Valuations Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Trustlink Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Vertical Network Solutions Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 Whiterose Janitorial Service Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Wilson Blanchard Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 & 55 YARDI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

60

thecondovoice

Winter 2009

62

thecondovoice

Winter 2009