CondoVoice - Fall 2007 by LS Graphics

www.ccitoronto.org

VOL. 12, NO. 1 • FALL 2007

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

IN THIS ISSUE I

I I

The South Kingsway

Water Efficiency Program

Condominium Records: Still an “Open Book”? Making Condo Rules Condo Dress Codes An Investment Plan is a Good Investment Toronto Waste Management & Recycling Update

… and more

PM #40047005

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

2006/2007 Board of Directors

Features

The South Kingsway Water Efficiency Program

An Investment Plan is a Good Investment

Making Condo Rules

Condominium Records: Still an “Open Book”?

Condo Dress Codes

Heart Defibrillators – Its Safe to be a Good Samaritan

Getting “Buy-in” to something “New”

Toronto Waste Mangement & Recycling Update

Not-So-Smart Sub-Metering

Odyssey of a Lawyer being Appointed Administrator – Part One

by Christopher Harris

by Greg Holohan

PRESIDENT John Warren, C.A. (Co-chair, Conference Committee, CAI Liaison) Adams, Masin & Tilley LLP

by Michael H. Clifton

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

by Robert Mullin

by Denise Lash ACCI, FCCI

by J. Robert Gardiner and John Lea

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

by Peter de Jager

BOARD MEMBERS Gina Cody, P.Eng., M.Eng., Ph.D., ACCI, FCCI (Chair, Education Committee, CAI Liaison) Construction Control Inc. Henry Cohen (Member, Membership Committee) YCC #0074 Brian Horlick, B.Comm., B.C.L., LL.B., ACCI (Co-chair, Public Relations Committee) Horlick Levitt Barristers & Solicitors Lisa Kay (Member, Membership Committee, Conference Committee, Website Committee) Maxium Condo Finance Group

Bill Thompson, BA, RCM, ACCI (Chair, Membership Committee) Malvern Condominium Property Management

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

ADMINISTRATOR - Lynn Morrovat ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT - Josee Lefebvre

by J. Robert Gardiner

by Armand Conant

Tom Park, P.Eng (Member, Membership Committee Member, Website Committee) Golder Associates Ltd. Vic Persaud, BA (Chair, Website Committee Member, Membership Committee) Suncorp Valuations Ltd.

by Doug King

CCI News 5 38 39 46 51

President’s Message Upcoming Fall Events New Members Director’s Corner Diversions & Distractions

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

President’s Message hope everyone had a great summer and comes back relaxed and recharged so you can approach all the fall and winter activities of your condominium with enthusiasm and optimism. Directors have many responsibilities – from budgets and finances, daily repair and maintenance issues; large repair and replacement projects as well as the people, parking and pet issues that are part of living together in condominium communities. CCI can help you deal effectively with those responsibilities. We provide the best in condominium education for Directors through our courses, annual conference and seminars. These are taught by some of the best condominium professionals around, property managers, engineers, lawyers, auditors and others who not only provide current and topical information that you will be able to use in your community, but who can also be a useful resource for you afterwards.

For those new to condominium living or being on the Board, consider Condo 101, a half-day course that discusses basic responsibilities in the areas of law, accounting, insurance and the reserve for major repairs and replacements. After you become familiar with the operations of your community, we recommend the Basic Directors Course held over six evenings and for those interested in more in-depth information about condominium issues there is the Advanced Directors Course over four evenings. These courses present the best practices to help you participate effectively in Board deliberations and to deal with the often conflicting demands of owners and residents as you try to provide the best possible environment for them. Periodically, we also present seminars on current topics of interest, so be sure to visit our website to ensure you don’t miss a topic you are interested in.

For those who enjoy exposure to a broad range of topics and speakers, both locally and from across the country, consider attending the 2007 Annual Condominium Conference on November 2 and 3, 2007. CCIToronto and the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario put on the conference; the theme this year is “Going Green” and the speakers are the best from Ontario and across the country. Our conference enjoys the continued support of Rogers Cable which enables us to offer a better conference each year; this year is the 11th annual conference and will be the biggest and best yet. I urge you to attend and assure you that you will be pleased if you do. The Toronto Chapter’s Annual General Meeting is later in the fall, please watch the website for details. There is a wine and cheese reception after the meeting that allows an opportunity to meet, mingle and expand the resources available to you, your Board and, ultimately, your condominium. I hope to see you there.

John Warren, CA President, CCI Toronto & Area Chapter

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

The South Kingsway Village

Water Efficiency Program BY CHRISTOPHER HARRIS

ost condominium corporations are reluctant to “cross the threshold” and perform work in Owners’ suites, but doing so can both reduce the operating costs of the corporation, and be regarded as significant value added. This article overviews the “Water Efficiency Program” model developed at “South Kingsway Village” condominium complex, for which we received a 2007 Green Toronto Award of Excellence from the City of Toronto, in the hope that condominiums such as yours are able to implement this model in your own complex.

Our Water Efficiency Program began with extensive research and analysis. We set out to find answers to the following questions:

• Was there a condominium model that we could adopt? • Could we design a program that encompassed the main uses of water in our suites: toilets, showers, and faucets? • Were there sufficient rebates and savings for our Condominium Corporation to consider paying for the purchase and installation of toilets & shower heads in owners suites? • Could we negotiate volume pricing that would enable a payback of 3 years or less on our investment? • How could we finance this initiative? • Could we develop a program that would result in the participation of the vast majority of style and brand conscious owners?

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

We quickly discovered that a program of this breadth had never been developed before; we would have to create one. While toilet and shower head retrofit programs were common in rental buildings, the same could not be said for condominiums, at least not where the Condominium Corporation paid for the cost of the initiative. Further, there did not appear to be any programs that included the replacement of faucets. Most of Owners’ suites still had the original leaky faucets which undoubtedly had an impact on our water consumption.

Cost/Pay Back Although we believed that there was value to our corporation in undertaking this water conservation initiative (the corporation is responsible for the cost of water consumed in all suites), we were not willing to fund a program that had a payback of more than 3 years. This objective influenced all of our purchasing decisions, from the selection of toilets and shower heads, to the cost of their installation, and to other costs that we had yet to discover. Based on a preliminary review of product costs, we decided early on that we would need to negotiate volume wholesale pricing for both the product and the plumbing services.

Financing Options

Since this initiative had not been included in our Operating Budget, we did not have funds upon which we could draw. This required developing a unique financing option to pay for this program. Please note that under the Condominium Act, Condominium Corporations cannot take out loans to finance initiatives. The option developed involved “borrowing” from our Capital Reserve Fund, and repaying the amount borrowed with the water savings realized over a 3 year period at the prevailing rate of interest. We worked with our Accountant, Financial Auditor and Lawyer to ensure that this approach would be permissible

under the Condominium Act, and that we could defend this if legally challenged. Although none of them had considered this approach before, all recognized that it would allow condominiums to implement a program such as ours, in the event that they did not have sufficient operating funds. Ultimately, our planning process took longer than expected. This did allow our corporation to include the required funds in our following year’s Operating Budget.

Choice of Product

A design feature in many suite bathrooms significantly limited the selection of toilets from which we could choose. A hinged (“banjo”) countertop, overtop of the toilet tank, required that we select toilets shorter than the standard height.

In addition, although we would offer a basic toilet and shower head, owners would need the option of paying to upgrade to mid, high end, and “comfort height” models (for the elderly), in order to drive the highest participation rates possible and thus the highest levels of water savings.

It is important to note that because the in-suite toilets and shower heads were the property of the owner, we could not force participation. Owners would have to sign a legal waiver “opting in” to our program, even though we were offering a free toilet and shower head. We realized that many of our owners would not sign up unless we provided them with high quality, name brand products from which to choose.

After reviewing products available in the market, we decided to select Toto toilets, Waterpik shower heads, and Moen faucets. They were well respected brands and carried reputable warrantees. As part of this process, we worked with Enbridge Gas to develop an alternative to their “free shower head” offer. We were able to have them provide us with a rebate equivalent to the cost of their offer, which we used to subsidize the cost of our shower heads. Although conceptually they supported this

approach, they had never developed a rebate option.

Negotiations

Armed with a financial model that we developed to reflect water savings, which also factored in the City of Toronto’s $60 toilet rebate and the forecast 9% annual increase in the water prices, we established a budget for the purchase and installation of a toilet and shower head. We discovered that even with the shorter toilets available to us, we would still have problems fitting them into some suites. This was related to the variation in the “standard” height of countertops installed during the construction of our building. In order to make this work, we would need to hire a carpenter to shave/reduce the thickness of some countertops; this cost would need to be factored into our budget as well. We decided that negotiating directly with Toto, Moen, and Waterpik would enable us to realize our lowest prices. They agreed to put us in touch with their wholesale representatives. All were extremely cooperative, and ultimately assisted in the development of our information package to owners.

We realized that although we could negotiate volume pricing, we might not be able to negotiate the discounts available to plumbing contractors. We approached plumbing contractors from the City of Toronto’s WESCO (Water and Energy Savings Company) list, to have them quote on turnkey installation (they supply toilets and labour), as well as labour only. This provided us with a good comparison to determine whether to buy directly from wholesalers, or through the contractors.

Making Our Program Even More Attractive

Through our negotiations, we were able to offer our owners a professionally installed toilet, shower head, and faucet, for less than the list price of most of those products. By taking Fall 2007

thecondovoice

responsibility for coordinating the installation in each suite, we eliminated the fear that many owners had of managing this work themselves. Convenience became a big selling point, on top of all of the other merits of our program.

Other Challenging Factors

We had significant challenges with our plumbing contractor. Unfortunately he consistently installed fewer toilets & faucets than forecast, damaged product, and did not disclose all problems that arose. Our Board got personally involved in facilitating compromises between our Property Management Office, who had become increasingly frustrated, and the plumbing contractor. It was not ideal, but we were able to complete the work in our first building.

We had other plumbing contractors quote on the installation for the second building, then decided to split the installation for the second building between two separate contractors. The same plumbing contractor was selected to install toilets and shower heads in the second building, based on their signing of a CCDC2 contract and agreeing to a set of conditions established by our Management Office. A new contractor was brought in to install the faucets. Through this experience we learned the value of checking references for similar work before awarding the business to a specific plumbing contractor, and the importance of a CCDC2 contract.

Our Results

We developed a comprehensive â&#x20AC;&#x153;Information Kitâ&#x20AC;? for all of our owners and organized an Information Night.

We then prepared an addendum to the kit based on questions from the Information Night and subsequent discussions.

Our Water Efficiency Program was exceptionally well received, with more than an 83% participation rate in our first building and over 67% in our second building. Many owners selected the toilet and shower head model upgrades and elected to purchase faucets. In spite of delays, owners were very happy with the results, especially those owners that had problems with old leaking faucets and malfunctioning toilets. There is no question that an initiative of this nature requires a lot of planning and preparation, but the ongoing savings are well worth the investment. I

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

An Investment Plan is a Good Investment BY GREG HOLOHAN, SCOTIAMCLEOD

ith many condominiums now reviewing their reserve fund study, it would be a good time to ensure that your condominium also has an investment plan in place. Without one, your Board may find itself offside of the Condominium Act.

According to Section 115 of the Act, condominiums that want to make investments in their reserve fund must have an up-to-date investment plan in place. Contrary to popular opinion, even investments in guaranteed investment certificates (GICs) require an investment plan.

“Some condominium Boards look me straight in the eye and tell me that they don’t have an investment plan,” says Jon Juffs, the Operations Manager at GRG Building Consultants. Mr. Juffs is GRG’s technical specialist for reserve fund studies and estimates that he has prepared over 500 such studies.

He is also a co-author of Reserve Fund Essentials, a recently published handbook on reserve fund planning.

“The other thing to consider,” says Mr. Juffs, “is that cautious investments are not the only ingredient in a good investment good plan.”

“Before investing any part of the money in the corporation’s reserve fund accounts, the Board shall develop an investment plan based on the anticipated cash requirements of the reserve fund as set out in the most recent reserve fund study.”

~ Section 115.8, Condominium Act of Ontario (emphasis added) Good plans carefully consider projected cash flows from reserve fund contributions, as well as investment interest, and ensure that corporations will have adequate cash available to meet the predicted expenses. Within the boundaries of a solid investment plan, there are usually excellent opportunities to maximize investment returns without compromising either safety or liquidity.

One effective – but often-overlooked – approach is to simply match investment maturities to projected cash flows.

Fearful of not having enough cash accessible, some condominiums actually end up being too conservative. For example, new condominiums with few near-term projected expenses squander hundreds or even thousands of dollars in available interest by selecting investments with maturities that are needlessly short.

Having liquidity to meet expenses may not necessarily mean holding thousands of dollars in cash; bonds that trade in a secondary market can ensure that the condo retains the liquidity it needs.

It’s worth noting that having a good investment plan in place isn’t just about meeting regulatory requirements. Even minor improvements in reserve fund interest earned can have a dramatic long-term effect on the condo’s financial health. After all, higher than expected interest from the investments means that directors may actually be able to slow the increases in condo fees to their owners.

Greg Holohan is an Investment Executive with ScotiaMcLeod. He specializes in helping condominiums improve the performance of their reserve fund investments. He can be reached at greg_holohan@scotiamcleod.com or 905.479.8238. I Fall 2007

thecondovoice

Making Condo Rules By Michael H. Clifton, Clifton Kok LLP The Condominium Act, 1998, (the “Act”) provides:

58. (1) The board may make, amend or repeal rules respecting the use of common elements and units to, (a) promote the safety, security or welfare of the owners and of the property and assets of the corporation; or (b) prevent unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the common elements, the units or the assets of the corporation. (2) The rules shall be reasonable and consistent with this Act, the declaration and the bylaws.

A series of condominium cases in Ontario1 directs courts to defer to rules that are duly and reasonably made by a condominium board of directors. So, how does one go about doing that? The following procedure and explanations should assist. 1.

The Board Proposes a Rule No action by the corporation is to be undertaken except by resolution made at a duly called meeting of the board. When a need is identified that can be 12

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

addressed by a rule (i.e., where the need relates to the safety, security or welfare of the owners and the property and assets of the corporation, or to preventing unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the common elements, units or assets of the corporation), the first step is for the board to meet and discuss what the proposed rule should be.

The Board may seek legal or other counsel to ensure its rule is reasonable and is not contrary to the Act or the declaration and by-laws of the corporation. A resolution is to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting noting: i. the text of the rule, and ii. the proposed effective date of the rule;

and directing the Board to deliver notice of the proposed new rule to unit owners in accordance with the Act. 2.

The Board sends a Notice of New Rules to Owners The next step is to prepare and deliver notice of the proposed new rule to the owners and mortgagees on the

corporation’s section 47(2) record2 in accordance with the resolution.

Pursuant to the Act, the notice must include: i. a copy of the proposed rule; (not merely a summary or explanation of it) ii. a statement of the date on which the board proposes that the rule will be effective; (the proposed effective date must be at least 30 days after the date on which notice is sent) iii. a statement that the owners have the right to requisition a meeting in accordance with section 46 of the Act and that the rule will become effective at the time determined by subsections 58(7) and (8) of the Act.

There is a deficiency in the instructions in the Act. As indicated, the notice of new rules is required to state that the owners have a right to requisition a meeting. However, in one case (explained in the next section) a rule cannot take effect unless approved at a meeting of owners “duly called for that purpose.” This means that in that one

case a meeting must be called by the board without waiting for a requisition of owners, if the new rule is to become effective. It appears that in order to duly enact rules in such a case, the board must both send the prescribed notice of new rules that indicates the right to requisition a meeting and actually call a meeting of owners with respect to such proposed new rules regardless of such notice. 3.

The Rule Becomes Effective in Accordance with the Act and Notice The notice of new rules is to state the date on which the proposed new rule become effective. This date cannot be earlier than 30 days after the date of the notice. This is due to subsection 58(7) of the Act, which provides the rule is not effective until 30 days after the notice is sent, if, in the interim, no requisition for a meeting of owners is received in accordance with section 46 of the Act.3

Subsection 58(8) of the Act states: A rule or an amendment to a rule that has substantially the same purpose or effect as a rule that the owners have previously amended or repealed within the preceding two years is not effective until the owners approve it, with or without amendment, at a meeting duly called for that purpose.

Therefore, if the board has sought to reenact (in substance or form) a rule that was already amended or repealed by the unit owners within the two years prior, there must be an owners meeting called in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the purpose of voting on the proposed rule. Presumably this is to prevent a new board from arbitrarily changing rules that a previous board had enacted without the clearly expressed approval of the unit owners.

1 Beginning with the Ontario Court of Appeal decision inYork Condominium Corp. No. 382 v. Dvorchik, [1997] O. J. No. 378. 2Subsection 47(2) of the Act requires condomini-

um corporations to maintain a record of the names and addresses for service of all unit owners and eligible mortgagees that are sent to it in writing by such owners and mortgages. A mortgagee is considered eligible to be included in the record if the terms of the mortgage provide the mortgagee with a right to give consent or vote in place of the unit owner at a meeting of owners.

3 Section 46 of the Act provides that a meeting of owners can be requisitioned by the owners of at least 15% of the units who, at the time, are listed on the corporation’s section 47(2) record and have the right to vote.

Reprinted with permission from “About Condo”, June 2007, by Michael H. Clifton, Clifton Kok LLP. Website: www.cklegal.ca I

If the board receives such a requisition within 30 days of the notice being sent out, then it must call the meeting of owners in accordance with section 46 of the Act and the vote of the owners at the meeting will determine whether the rule is passed. Otherwise, if no requisition for a meeting is received within the said 30 days, the rule can be in effect from the 30th day after notice of the proposed rule was sent to owners.

Note that it is not necessary for the rule to be effective on the 30th day after the notice is sent. In appropriate circumstances, the board may wish to have the rule become effective at a later date. The Act does not specifically prohibit this, but only prevents the proposed rule from coming into effect on a date that is earlier than the end of the 30-day period during which a meeting can be requisitioned.

In one case, it is necessary for the board to call a meeting of owners to approve a proposed rule even though no meeting is requisitioned.

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

Condominium Records:

Still an “Open Book”? BY ROBERT MULLIN

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

Few topics may evoke less of an emotional response than ‘condominium records’. The preservation of corporate minute books, financial ledgers, and employment contracts rarely ignite the imagination or captivate public attention. That said, condominium records often represent the physical ‘nerve-centre’ of any corporation. As superintendents retire, unit owners move, Boards evolve, and professionals come and go, the net effect is that after a few short years, the only ‘institutional knowledge’ left in the building may lie in the records.

Although records serve as an important lamppost for any future Board, they also provide a vital portal in the affairs of the corporation for the vast majority of those unit owners who never serve on the Board. Between annual general meetings the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.19, poses few demands on Boards to communicate with unit owners. By accessing a corporation’s records, unit owners can gain valuable insight into the stewardship of their condominium. To that end, since the beginning of condominium legislation in 1967, unit owners have always been granted the liberal right to access such records.

Despite this, a new passage contained in the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.19; (“the new Act”), has led some Boards to now control or ‘gatekeep’ unit owners access to records. A growing number of unit owners have only been granted access to condominium records, once they have supplied their reason, intention or purpose behind their request. For the reasons to follow, it is strongly believed that this interpretation is

wrong, that it contradicts the overall pursuit and aim of the new Act, and ultimately spells trouble for a Board of directors who embrace it.

B. Access to Records - The New Act

Section 55 of the new Act governs condominium record keeping and production. A completely reworked section, it demands that the corporation must keep ‘adequate’ records on a variety of matters, including; it’s finances, Board minutes, reserve fund studies, policies of insurance, contracts, management agreements, leases, deeds and easements. Section 55(3) of the Act goes on to protect access to these documents by stating:

“Upon receiving a written request and reasonable notice, the corporation shall permit an owner, a purchaser or a mortgagee of a unit or an agent of one of them duly authorized in writing, to examine the records of the corporation, except those records described in subsection (4), at a reasonable time for all purposes reasonably related to the purposes of this Act.”

Subsection (4)’s exceptions are limited to employee documents, litigation or insurance investigation files, and records relating to specific units or owners.

The challenge is the exit passage of section 55(3), which states, “...for all purposes reasonably related to the purposes of this Act.” This ‘passage’ has been interpreted by some condominium professionals to demand a party’s intent or purpose behind their record request. Presumably, only once the Board is satisfied that the request is reasonably related to the purposes of the new Act,

will the records be produced. The seminal 2001 book “Condominiums in Ontario” by Harry Herskowitz and Mark F. Freedman (Toronto: LSUC & OBA), lends support to this interpretation. At page 161 it states:

“This caveat may permit the corporation, in certain circumstances, to refuse examination of non-exempt records if the intent of the examination is not legitimately related to the Act’s purposes.”

This interpretation, it is submitted, is challengeable for the following three reasons.

1. The “Open Book” Cases A variety of Ontario court cases have interpreted the right to access records. In the 1992 case of McKay v. Waterloo North Condominium Corp. No. 23 (1992) Carswell Ont 622, Justice Cavarzan gave direction on the purpose and importance of providing open access to records. He stated:

“In the interest of administrative efficiency, an elected board of directors is authorized to make decisions on behalf of the collectively organized as a condominium corporation, on the condition that the affairs and dealings of the corporation and its board of directors are an open book to the members of the corporation, the unit owners.”

He went on to state that corporations impose a unique liability on unit owners, making them ultimately financial responsible for the affairs of the corporation. This liability, Justice Cavarzan held, was tempered with the protection that a corporation must keep adequate records, and “...the unqualified right in members to inspect the records...to enable an interested party to

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

be fully informed and to assess his position.”

This ‘open book’ analogy wove its way into later cases, and neatly dovetailed into the commonly held perception of condominium law being ‘consumer protection legislation’. In the 2000 case of Rohoman v. York Condominium Corp. No. 141 (2000) Carswell Ont 2144, Justice Chapnik revisited this concept, and furthered that it was actually an underlying policy of such legislation to make the affairs of a condominium corporation this ‘open book.’ Demanding that a party furnish their purpose, reason or intent, diminishes this ‘open book’ concept. The counter argument is that these cases came before the new Act’s section 55 passage. That said, a recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice case sheds new light on this debate.

2. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 551 v. Mani Adam (2006) Carswell Ont 7682 In this 2006 case, Justice Low ruled on a variety of matters, including a unit owner’s entitlement to access records. The court held that the condominium’s property manager was in error by demanding that the unit owner disclose his motive or purpose in seeking to inspect the condominium corporation’s records. Justice Low, interpreting the new Act, held that even though the unit owner’s request for the mailing addresses of the board members to write them a letter was reasonable, “[t]he statute does not, however, require a person to disclose his reasons for requesting the information as a condition of obtaining it.”

In that case, a variety of entitlements were refused the unit owner, resulting in an ultimate cost award against the condominium corporation of $32,000.00. As a result, it would conclusively appear that the courts will not permit the intention of the record seeker to be demanded, opting rather for the ‘open book’ concept.

3. The Open Book - Expanded Prior to the new Act, the records section of the previous Act was a short provision containing only:

“Section 21. The corporation shall keep adequate records, any owners or agent of an owner duly authorized in writing may inspect the records on reasonable notice and at any reasonable time.”

Section 55 marked a wholesale change to this section. The list of required records was expanded, financial records were preserved for six years, the right to copy records was entrenched, and a corporation could be penalized up to $500.00 for failing to provide records to a unit owner. These changes represented an expansion of the ‘open book’ concept, not a rollback. To interpret, “... for all purposes reasonably related to the purposes of this Act”, as imposing tighter control on accessing condominium records appears to run contrary to the overall goals of section 55. C.

Conclusion

Many may wonder, if the passage is not intended to restrict access to records, why does it exist? If one interprets it in the overall light of; a) condominium law being consumer protection legislation; b) the courts ‘open book’ concept, and; c) the expanded record keeping section of the new Act;

It stands to reason that the caveat was included to expand record requests, to lower an already low threshold, and permit even a remotely related record request to shelter under the new Act. With that in mind and the cautionary words of Justice Low, boards who fail to treat their records as an open book may find themselves on the losing end of costly litigation, with everyone losing. I

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

CONDOMINIUM SECTION

Maclaren, Corlett LLP is a full service law firm with offices in Toronto and Ottawa; both having significant condominium sections. The condominium section of the firmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Toronto office is headed up by Armand Conant, and represents many condominium corporations in Toronto and the GTA. We work closely with our clients to find practical, cost effective solutions to problems. For more information please contact: Armand G.R. Conant

186 St. George Street, Main Floor Toronto, Ontario M5R 2N3 Tel: (416) 361-3094 Fax: (416) 361-6261 Email: aconant@macorlaw.com www.maclarencorlett.com

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

Condo Dress Codes BY DENISE LASH ACCI, FCCI MILLER THOMSON LLP

“It’s my home and no one can tell me what I’m allowed to wear!” n this age of political correctness, many people regard their home as the last sanctuary where they, and they alone, make the rules and can behave as they want.

While they may be true for your condo unit, it’s not the case when it comes to the common elements. Check your condominium’s dress code rules. We’re not talking about black tie or business casual here but restrictions that attempt to maintain a certain level of decency and decorum in the common areas.

But who sets the standards? If a dress code interferes with your lifestyle or is just not reasonable as far as you are concerned, is it enforceable and can you change it?

The Board makes the rules and as long as they are reasonable, they are enforceable. If owners don’t like a rule, the Condominium Act permits an owner to requisition a meeting of the owners to vote on the rule. But before the Board is required to call a meeting of this nature, the owner has to first gather the signatures from owners of at least 15%

of the units in the building- not as easy a task as you might think.

Dress codes typically generate a fair amount of discussion amongst residents, and that naturally tends to increase as we get into the hot summer months. What may be offensive or awkward for some residents may be perfectly acceptable to others. If there are no safety concerns and no potential for damage or harm to other residents, why shouldn’t a male resident be able to enter the building on a hot summer day without a shirt on? Why shouldn’t children be able to enter the elevator in their swimsuits to go down

to the pool area? Bare feet in the lobby? What about topless sunbathing on your private, exclusive use balcony? Some condos have gone so far as to restrict women from wearing short tops- no belly buttons! The Condominium Act does empower the Board to pass rules, including dress codes, so it’s important that Boards review these rules carefully and get input from the owners to reflect what the majority of the owners want.

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

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

We set the industry standard, others try to follow

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

Heart Defibrillators – It’s Safe to be a Good Samaritan *BY J. ROBERT GARDINER AND JOHN LEA GARDINER MILLER ARNOLD LLP

he Chase McEachern Act (Heart Defibrillator Civil Liability Act), 2007, was passed by the McGuinty government in the summer of 2007. The Act is designed to promote the use of heart defibrillators by relieving from liability persons who administer emergency assistance by using an Automatic External Defibrillator (an “AED”) although such a person may remain liable for gross negligence or for failure to maintain the AED on the person’s property.

Chase McEachern, an eleven year old Barrie resident, died in hospital, six days after collapsing in gym class. However, his fight to have defibrillators made available in schools and hockey arenas lives on. Just before his tragic death, Chase (who had been diagnosed with an irregular heart beat) had penned a letter to Don Cherry of Hockey Night In Canada fame, asking Cherry to donate his time and celebrity to the cause.

The letter was never sent, as Chase collapsed before sending it. Chase’s former hockey coach, Detective Sergeant Bill Seldon of the Toronto Police forwarded the letter to Cherry on Chase’s behalf. The cause of defibrillator

access accelerated dramatically with mentions on The Fan 590 and on Coach’s Corner. That’s when the money started to pour into a foundation Chase’s parents had set up to fund their son’s initiative, starting with a $100,000 anonymous donation.

The McGuinty government enacted the Chase McEachern Act (Heart Defibrillator Civil Liability Act), 2007 for three purposes:

• to protect individuals from liability for damages that may occur in relation to their use of an AED to save someone’s life at the immediate scene of an emergency, unless damages are caused by gross negligence. • to protect health care professionals from liability for use of an AED to save someone’s life at the immediate scene of an emergency, unless damages are caused by gross negligence and unless the AED is used in a hospital or other place having appropriate health care facilities and equipment for the purpose of defibrillation.

• To protect owners and occupiers of premises on which an AED is installed from liability for any harm that may occur in relation to the use of the AED, provided that the owner

or occupier made the AED available for use in good faith without gross negligence and properly maintained the defibrillator (that protection does not apply to a hospital or health care facility).

In other words, hospitals and health care facilities are held to a higher standard and must use high-tech defibrillators, but now an individual has statutory protection from liability if he uses an AED to save someone’s life during an emergency. Such Good Samaritans need no longer hesitate to come to the aid of a heart attack victim; even if the Good Samaritan is negligent, she will not face personal liability for negligence if the victim is injured or dies. AEDs are simple to use, with clear, simple instructions on the device. Gross negligence could be expected to arise only in the rarest of circumstances, where the neglect was highly unreasonable.

Gross negligence means conduct or a failure to act that is so reckless that it demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury will result. Consider an amusement park, for example, offering high risk recreational activities to the public such as rock climbing or parasailing. If a customer Fall 2007

thecondovoice

is injured when defective or carelessly assembled safety equipment provided by the company unexpectedly fails, a valid release should protect the company from a lawsuit. However, if the company knows up front that the equipment is defective and uses it anyway, it would not be protected by the release. That is because such foreknowledge would constitute “gross negligence”.

Some community centres, office buildings and larger condominium corporations have considered acquiring an AED, recognizing its straight-forward usability and simple instructions, as well as its affordability, but feared to acquire one in view of the potential exposure to liability for damages. The Chase McEachern Act should alleviate those liability concerns, allowing boards of directors of condominiums to reassess the viability of installing an AED upon the premises. If your Board decides to acquire an AED, here are some suggestions to pro-

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

tal conditions and safe from tampering by unauthorized persons.

• Train several responsible persons when and how to use the AED in a safe manner. Choose enough volunteers. Coverage should always be available despite time of day/night/vacations, etc.

• Encourage volunteers to take First Aid and CPR courses (the corporation could elect to fund that safety and security cost).

tect the condominium corporation, its board of directors, the property manager and unit owners (as owners and occupiers of the premises) from any liability when the AED is installed and made available for use: • Install the AED in a safe and secure location, in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, without exposure to any undue environmen-

• Use a 24-hour concierge, superintendent or another viable alternative as the initial contact person who can access appropriate volunteers immediately.

• Prepare and circulate a heart attack/stroke memo (approved by an appropriate medical professional or the Heart and Stroke Foundation), so that residents and volunteers can recognize the initial signs of a heart attack or stroke.

• Keep aspirin on hand to administer immediately in the event of stroke and dial 911 for emergency medical services and an ambulance.

• Conduct annual test runs to ensure the emergency contact person, volunteers and staff each know what to do.

• Make sure your corporation’s fire and emergency plan is up to date and volunteers are aware of relevant information. • Circulate a memo to residents informing them of information pertinent to the AED and contact persons in the event of a heart attack emergency. Attach a copy to each status certificate package.

• The board of directors should pass a resolution to designate as defibrillator officers of the corporation, any of the corporation’s property manager, staff, the emergency contact person and any volunteers, so that they will qualify to be indemnified by the corporation (and likely by the corporation’s insurer) as officers of the corporation, in the unlikely event any of them were found liable for gross negligence.

• Diarize and record on a regular basis maintenance of the AED in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Designate the person(s) required to maintain, test and control the AED (the Super?) in the job description and require reports to the manager.

If an AED caused injury or death while used in good faith to rectify an emergency heart attack, there is always the possibility (as in the case of any other injury on the common elements) that the victim’s family might sue the condominium corporation, or possibly even its board of directors, property manager and superintendent (or other person charged with maintaining the AED) for failing to maintain the defibrillator properly. However, in reality, if the corporation maintains the AED in accordance with the manufacturer’s written instructions and

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

if a staff member is designated to diarize and regularly inspect the AED and report to the property manager or board accordingly, it is highly unlikely that the corporation would be held liable for lack of maintenance of an AED (compared to the corporation’s more likely potential liability for failure to maintain plumbing, elevators or removal of hidden ice beneath snow on its sidewalks). In any event, the Corporation’s by-law indemnification clause should protect directors and designated officers from any financial liability and legal costs, as should the Corporation’s liability insurance policy.

Section 18 (1) and (2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, provides that the corporation may own, acquire and dispose of real or personal property only for the purposes that are consistent with the objects and duties of the corporation. The owners share the assets of the corporation in the same proportions as the proportions of their common interest in accordance with the Act, declaration and the by-laws.

Section 26 of the Condominium Act, 1998, states:

“For the purpose of determining liability resulting from breach of the duties of an occupier of land, the corporation shall be deemed to be the occupier of the common elements and the owners shall be deemed not to be occupiers of the common elements.”

The Condominium Act does not contain an equivalent provision applicable to an asset of the corporation, but one would expect the same result to apply. In fact, s. 17 (1) and (2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 provide that the objects of the corporation are to manage the property and assets of the corporation on behalf of the owners, and the corporation has a duty to control, manage and administer those common elements and assets. In effect, even if the unthinkable happened, it would be the condominium corporation which owned the AED and had the duty to control, manage and administer it; 24

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

the unit owners would not be liable because they were not owners of the AED (they only had their proportionate share common interest in the corporation’s assets, which could be relevant only upon dissolution of the corporation). Therefore, unit owners need not have any realistic concerns of being held liable personally for gross negligence or failure to properly maintain the defibrillator. The only way a unit owner could be held liable personally for gross negligence would be if she participated in a grossly negligent manner at the scene of the emergency.

From a legal perspective, any concerns about gross negligence or failure to maintain an AED pale in comparison to a condominium corporation’s usual potential liabilities as occupier of its common elements and with regard to issues such as directors’ strict liability to ensure that all reasonable measures have been taken to comply with all

occupational health and safety requirements to protect any persons working on the common elements with respect to any of the corporation’s construction projects, or potential strict liability pertaining to environmental claims for failure to maintain oil storage tanks or gas lines, or various fire and flood scenarios - all of which are normally responsibly addressed by a condominium’s board of directors and property manager in the usual course of condominium living. *J. Robert Gardiner, B.A., LL.B., ACCI, FCCI, is senior partner in the law firm Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP, practicing condominium law in Toronto. John Lea, B.A., LL.B., is an articling student with Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP. I

Getting “Buy-in” to Something “New” BY PETER DE JAGER f you’re a ‘doer’ of any sort, whether you’re a meeting planner, organizer, manager, secretary or a just one of those people that makes the world go round – then from time to time you’re going to stumble across a method or process that you just know will benefit others if only they’ll adopt it. You’ll then discover, sometimes much to your surprise, that your enthusiasm for your new found solution isn’t shared by those around you.

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

Welcome to the very common problem of implementing a Change.

If you also classify yourself as a problem solver then you’re well aware that we repeat certain problem solving solutions time and time again. We don’t set out to do this consciously, but never-

towards our goal. In a sense, that’s why we attempt to categorize the solutions that work, because this knowledge then helps us avoid the ‘solutions’ which don’t work. Good problem solving practices attempts to steer us towards the successful problem solving techniques by steering us away from the

an accurate assessment of the efficacy of “buy-in”. Typically, when we find a good, new solution we get enthusiastic, sometimes wildly enthusiastic about it. Our immediate strategy is to try and convince others that this solution is the answer to all

Typically, when we find a good, new solution we get enthusiastic, sometimes wildly enthusiastic about it. Our immediate strategy is to try and convince others that this solution is the answer to all our problems. the-less these solution patterns repeat. A good problem solver understands the need to identify, categorize and generalize these solution patterns and use them consciously. There is a flip side to this, there are also patterns of failure, ‘solutions’ we try time and time again that don’t lead us

less effective approaches.

The “Buy-in” strategy in traditional Change Management is a perfect example of a commonly used unsuccessful approach to a common management problem. Yes, I’m well aware of the fact that questioning the value of a commonly held belief is heretical, but it is

Jonathan Fine Stephen Goodbaum Michael Pascu Maria Dimakas

our problems. We want them to ‘buyinto’ the new idea, after all, we know it works. Our approach is to concentrate on the benefits of this solution. Our goal? To get our audience or organization to adopt the new idea. And then we’re surprised when they respond with, “Why?”

Mario Deo Joseph Ryan Marco Graziani

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

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

It doesn’t matter what new idea we’re trying to implement or in what organizational context we’re operating, we will always encounter this well meaning “Why?” We then incorrectly, in my opinion, label it as ‘resistance to change’. We also mislabel this phenomenon as being ‘negative’ and perhaps even as an ‘obstacle to progress’. The problem we’ve created is this: We’re attempting to sell a solution, before agree on the problem.

Here’s an experiment, we’ll make it incredibly simple. Walk into the office next to yours and say to the person, “Stand up.” (or “Stand up!” if you want to increase the intensity of the experiment.) What is their response? They will either ask “Why?”, at the very least they’ll think it. What you just conducted was the simplest of change experiments. The “Why?” you received isn’t trivial, it needs to be answered in some fashion if you’re to get the victim subject to stand.

If you want a more robust experiment, one performed by a PhD, one with ‘convincing’ statistics, then consider the test performed by Dr. Robert Cialdini (Described in his book, “Influence: Science and Practice” ISBN 0-32118895-0) This experiment was con-

ducted at a busy photocopier.

The researcher stepped to the front of the queue and asked: “Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?” The result was that 60% of the time she was allowed to make her copies.

On the next trial she asked instead: “Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I’m in a rush?” This increased her success rate (immediately making copies) to 94%.

To test if “…because I’m in a rush” was the deciding factor for the change, they changed the opening line to: “Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies?” Her success rate remained close to 94% at 93%. The initial request with no reason given is 60%, adding even the smallest of reasons, ‘because’ to the unspoken ‘Why?’ increases that success rate to 93%.

So… if you’re trying to implement a new idea, what is your answer to the reasonable question ‘Why?’ going to be? That this “idea” is better than what we’re currently doing isn’t enough. That’s basically what we’re saying when we’re enthusiastic and merely sing the praises of a new solution.

What people need to hear is a description of the problem that the new idea is supposed to solve. You cannot sell anyone the benefits of anything until they agree that the benefits are necessary.

So? What problems does your new idea solve? What are the failings of your existing process? Can you point to specific failings which everyone agrees need addressing? Can you measure what it costs in lost opportunity costs? Can you then estimate the opportunities offered by the new idea? If that’s too difficult, or circumspect, is it possible to identify an existing outstanding problem which has defied solution at great cost to the organization? Can the cost of not solving it justify a different approach? Perhaps trying out your idea in some limited manner?

Peter de Jager is a provocative Speaker, Writer and Consultant. His primary focus in on how we manage change, technology and the future. In addition to speaking at conferences worldwide, he’s also written monthly columns for Municipal World and Computing Canada. His goal is always to question what we think is so, and in so doing perhaps open up new opportunities. You can contact him at: pdejager@technobility.com I

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

Toronto Waste Management & Recycling Update BY DOUG KING, METRO GROUP

Toronto Waste Management & Recycling Update 2008 WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

In June 07 Toronto Council approved a comprehensive ‘Waste Management Plan”, featuring expanded recycling initiatives. The current $183,500.000.00 City Waste Management system budget will be increased by an estimated 54 Million to expand the: • Recyclable materials collected; • Container and Vehicle collection systems & • Material Recycling Facility (MRF) infrastructure. ESTIMATED COSTING

The previously proposed “Levy System” for waste removal over the “allowable limit” in Multi Unit Residential Buildings (MURB’s), has been replaced with a rebate / replacement user fee, for all waste removal.

The plan is to “rebate” the current “Waste Management system cost” to all residential taxpayers. This includes the collection and processing, of all recyclable & compostable materials.

In July 2008 all landfill waste collection will be added to the condo corporations’ maintenance fees, in the form of the new component of the Utility (water) bill. The specific cost to empty waste collection bins is only estimated, at this time. In Multi Unit Building a proposed rebate of $ 157.00/Year is estimated to be replaced by a $ 203.00/Year, “expanded system” cost. This assumes each dwelling is actively recycling and generating a maximum of 1/3 bag of waste weekly. With landfilled waste as the only billable cost, a financial incentive is geared to divert waste through improved dry recycling and organic collection expansion. The satellite transponders attached to all waste containers are to be used for billing, with a back-up system of manual driver recordkeeping.

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

RECYCLABLE MATERIAL EXPANSION

The comprehensive plan is aimed at reducing waste going to Toronto’s new Green Lane Landfill, extending the life of the facility and protecting the cost per tonne of disposal, over the longer term.

Multi Unit buildings will be required to initiate Organic (food) waste separation programs throughout 2008 and 2009.

There will be 18 new city staff beginning next year, to expand educational efforts and regulate recycling program compliance. Concurrently, expanded Dry Recycling MRF & Wet (Organics) facility capacity is being established to handle the increased volumes being diverted from landfill. CONTAINERS & COLLECTION SYSTEMS

The vehicle systems traditionally used to collect and remove Waste & Recyclables are becoming increasingly interchangeable.

That is to say - the primary design or type of Front End Loader “FEL” Steel Containers & Plastic Toter bins are being used for various materials, with the evolving 3 stream system. (Waste – Dry & Wet Recycling).

The city proposes to initially supply all MURB residents with individual container systems, for their personal use. Replacement of lost or damaged resident systems and all final vehicle collection containers, will be your equipment asset and expense, going forward. Buildings may adapt their infrastructure and recycling programs in several ways: • Drop Off Recycling Depot expansion

• Multi Floor - Chute Recycling System Retrofits

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

• Creation of an enhanced building program / service system

It’s prudent to plan and assess various options, in order to invest wisely in your building infrastructure & container assets.

Town house condos will begin receiving door to door “auto-dumped toter container collections”, similar to the new program, in other single family houses. Smaller totes and a “compact” vehicle system have been reviewed for these sites. INTERNAL BUILDING COLLECTION SYSTEMS

With the new plan the city will be providing “in-suite” dry and organic recycling containers for all MURB dwellings.

The previous dry recycling system was not set up to allow for plastic bags – this is now changing. Current “pilot projects” are testing “in-suite” & “onfloor” recycling containers and plastic bag systems, to increase recovery rates.

Toronto organic collections in single family houses was established with the use of bags and “small green curbside mini-toters” Town homes may use these but various larger final “wet” col-

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

lection containers, will be used in large MURB’s. VEHICLE COLLECTION SYSTEMS

Dry mixed recycling has evolved in most high rises to use “FEL” Steel bins - like the waste style containers. Some buildings are testing compaction of these materials, which reduces bin requirements and enhances interchangeability.

Plastic Toter Containers (360 litre/95 gallon) will continue to be used where needed for Dry recyclables and a smaller 120 litre/35 gallon version, will likely be the most common Wet / Organic container system. Wet collection may also use FEL bins or potentially a “lined in-ground” bin system. These details are being are being finalized by the city, as their initial “organics pilot programs” are concluding. END OF THE CITY OF TORONTO “CONTAINER RENTAL PROGRAM”

The former City of Toronto “Rental Container Program” for FEL & Rear End Loader “REL” Steel Containers will be end by 2008.

Your Condo will need to decide

whether to purchase these containers from the City, or make other arrangements for your purchase or rental container needs. Review alternatives when assessing your building recycling program and infrastructure & container options –try to invest once - wisely! OTHER MUNICIPAL PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS

GTA wide Single Stream Dry MRF evolution and revised collection is underway. Peel Region will begin supplying some MURB’s with a FEL recycling collection system this fall.

All GTA and several other municipalities have started Wet Organics collection in single family homes. Some are in the early planning stages to expand organics collections to MURB’s, over the next several years.

Doug King is with the Metro Group and will be moderating a session on “Recycling – Programs and Infrastructure Evolution” at the PM Expo this November. This offers a venue to learn the coming trends and hear from the experts. Doug may be reached at dougking@ metrogroupcan.com – 416 678 2428. I

Not-So-Smart Sub-Metering BY J. ROBERT GARDINER GARDINER MILLER ARNOLD LLP

e have all known that sub-metering in condominium units would be mandatory or inevitable – except for the fact that effective team lobbying efforts by CCI-Toronto, ACMO and the CCI Ontario branches have again won a major victory for the condo industry!

The bottom line is that a new Regulation makes the decision to implement a smart metering program within condominium units to be a voluntary choice by each condominium’s board of directors. Many condominiums will breathe a deep sigh of relief, while other environmentally-conscious condos will recognize that it will continue to be a smart move to install smart metering technology in their units. Various implications arise from the new Regulation.

Initially, there was no doubt that the government’s smart metering requirements could not be avoided. Subsections (3) (2) and (4) of the Energy Conservation Leadership Act, 2006 (“Bill 21”) proposed by Ontario’s Ministry of Energy required condominium corporations to install smart meters, smart sub-meters and related goods, services and technologies in all condo units by 2010. Some wording in those sections was ambiguous and did not properly facilitate avoidance of a

Initially, there was no doubt that the government’s smart metering requirements could not be avoided. range of condo problems. Many condominium corporations have held off on sub-metering upon the advice of their lawyers and property managers pending the outcome of the Energy Regulations.

By the time the Energy Conservation Leadership Act, 2006 locked into Third Reading, it seemed hopeless to convince the Ministry to visualize reality. We were given no prospect that the Regulations would address our main concerns, but we continued to lobby for appropriate exceptions, alternatives and wording to address our concerns pertaining to condo law and contract issues. Fortunately, during the same period of time, CCI-Toronto’s Legislative Committee had developed a long-term lobbying program and was able to test out a number of its strategies to address

smart metering concerns affecting its member condominiums as a pilot project. John Oakes, Bob Gardiner and Armand Conant (CCI-Toronto Legislative Committee), Steve Moran (Lobbyist), Sandy Kilgour (Miller Thomson LLP), Greg Neff (President, DCC 123), and other condo boards continued to lobby Ministers, MPPs and Energy staff. CCI-Toronto retained Andrew Roman of Miller Thomson LLP to forward a brief to the Ministry. Bob Gardiner also prepared four smart metering condo legal briefs.

The Ministry of Energy responded by adding subsection 53.17 to the Energy Conservation Leadership Act, 2006, which in essence, provided that despite the Condominium Act, 1998, or any other Act, a distributor or licensed person, in the circumstances prescribed by regulation, is required to install prescribed types of smart metering equipment in condominiums for prescribed classes of consumers who would be billed based on the consumption of electricity, in priority to the wording of a registered declaration or by-law.

Subsection 53.21 (1) (p) of that Act allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which smart meters or smart sub-metering systems must be installed under subsection Fall 2007

thecondovoice

53.17, including the classes of property in which specified types of submetering equipment are to be installed, the installation time limit and the applicable classes of consumers.

John Oakes (President of Brookfield Residential Services Ltd. and past President of ACMO) has relentlessly led the charge for the whole industry to try to convince Energy officials that the obvious appeal of sub-metering would not actually result in significant energy savings, but in many situations would give rise to additional costs; ie there would clearly be an increase in cost arising from the cost of installing meters and the monthly administration fee by 3rd party submetering companies to read, invoice and collect individual billing charges. John’s visible efforts as Moderator of CCI/ACMO’s hydro sub-metering seminars (with Sahar Mishriki [Sr. Policy Advisor, Ministry of Energy] and Sandy Kilgour) is far outstripped by his extensive efforts to meet with the Energy Minister and staff. His convincing arguments and the detailed energy consumption information derived from Brookfield Residential Services Ltd.’s condominiums who already had submeters were persuasive.

The crucial moment came at a meeting convened by the Ministry of Energy at the end of February, 2007. John Oakes presented detailed information and solid arguments why exemptions should be permitted. The writer presented his third brief proposing proposed solutions to six condo legal concerns caused by smart metering. Maria Domakas recommended wording to overcome problems in long-term submetering administration agreements. A representative from the Ministry of Government Services and the Ministry of Energy Senior Policy Advisor carefully noted our presentations and was sincerely concerned about our perspectives. In effect, we educated Ministry Staff about the Pandora’s Box of problems that would arise from sub-metering without exemptions and alternatives. 32

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

Even then, we pointed out how the 1.4 million voters living in Ontario’s 7,800 condos would turn sub-metering into a political hot potatoe if the Ontario government shot itself in the foot by imposing unreasonably increased costs far in excess of the minimal energy savings likely to occur in many condominium scenarios, especially at high rise buildings having central HVAC systems (since the greatest consumption of hydro within units could not actually

be controlled by residents). Excessive costs would also arise in units requiring two or more smart meters. We presented an array of complexities and undue difficulties in various scenarios.

Ministry Staff also came to understand that many condos have implemented substantial energy savings by initiating their own energy retrofit programs, especially by installing replacement high efficiency chillers and boilers,

coupled with variable speed drives on fresh air fans, replacement of high energy consumption incandescent lighting and use of computer-controlled timers and thermostats (utilizing the services of several preferred energy retrofit engineering firms). Other building materials, appliances and alternate energy-saving devices could be expected to exceed smart-metering energy savings in many situations. In view of increased energy charges in recent

2. The installation of smart meters or smart sub-metering systems, in the case of a building that falls into a prescribed class of property described in paragraph3 of section 2 (i.e., a proposed condominium).”

As innocent as that wording appears, the writer and other condo lawyers and property managers are advising clients that section 3 of O.R. 442/07 means that smart sub-metering will not be

The crucial moment came at a meeting convened by the Ministry of Energy at the end of February, 2007. years, many condos are undertaking energy retrofits with various components having 3 – 7 year guaranteed payback periods.

Some financial companies provide financing to pay the up-front costs (subject to an appropriate borrowing bylaw, loan common expense assessment, loan agreement and General Security Agreement and Promissory Note) with repayment programs which use the hydro savings to fund the borrowed amount over the term, rather than encroaching upon the reserve fund to pay for the full borrowing costs

We are grateful that the Ontario Cabinet released Ontario Regulation 442/07 entitled Installation of Smart Meters and Smart Sub-Metering Systems in Condominiums on August 2, 2007, which provides a simple solution to our concerns. Specifically, section 3 states: “For the purpose of subsection 53.17 (1) of the Act, the following are prescribed circumstances:

1. The approval by the board of directors to install smart meters or smart sub-metering systems, in the case of a building that falls into a prescribed class of property described in paragraph 1 or 2 of section 2 (i.e., an existing condominium corporation).

mandatory in condominium units. The Ministry of Energy has confirmed that installation of such smart sub-metering equipment will be a voluntary decision of the board of directors and will not be an imposed requirement, unless the Board decides it is appropriate to do so. In fact, subsection 55.17 (1) of the Energy Conservation Leadership Act, 2006 allows a “prescribed circumstance”, such as is set out in section 3 of O.R. 442/07, to impose the requirement that the voluntary approval by a condominium’s board of directors is required before a condominium would be obligated by statute to install any sub-metering or sub-metering goods, services or technologies. This major initiative of CCI/ACMO will save many of our members thousands of dollars each year – millions throughout the condo industry.

The same regulation also provides the Ontario Energy Board with the authority to set requirements for metering technology used in condominiums and to ensure that the technology is capable of measuring electricity consumption or use in accordance with time of use rates. At a minimum, such technology must be capable of measuring electricity consumption or use in hourly intervals. O.R. 442/07 comes into force on December 31, 2007. Continued on page 35 An additional regulation entitled

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

Toronto and Area Chapter

11th Annual Joint ACMO/CCI-T Condominium Conference November 2nd and 3rd, 2007 • Doubletree International Plaza Hotel, 655 Dixon Road, Toronto ON Mark your calendars now for this exciting annual Conference and Trade Show that promises an enlightening array of educational sessions and outstanding networking opportunities. Over 60 Speakers and 80 Exhibitors are confirmed for this year’s show!

Building Better Communities – Going Green!

Exciting Session Topics Include: • • • •

CCI-T/ACMO is pleased to present Guy Dauncey as the opening keynote speaker for this year’s conference… Guy Dauncey, Climate Change Expert, shares a vital and upbeat message about our planet, and the many ways in which we can help to sustain it. He has dedicated his life's work to "encouraging greater sustainability and hope for our future”. Guy is the founder and President of the BC Sustainable Energy Association, whose 550 members work to develop sustainable solutions for BC's vast energy needs. He also works as a consultant specializing in green building, ecovillages, sustainable energy, and sustainable community development. His most recent book, Stormy Weather: 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change, won a Nautilus Award at the New York Book Expo. Reviewers have called it "a rare combination of science and activism", and "the most important ecological book of our generation". He has also written A Sustainable Energy Plan for the US and After the Crash: The Emergence of the Rainbow Economy, which won an Observer Green Book of the Year Award in the UK. True to using diverse media to get out his message, Guy has also worked as a consultant with the Discovery Channel in the US, and for David Suzuki's The Nature of Things special "Turning Down The Heat," which won an Earth Vision award in Santa Cruz in 1999. He has travelled extensively throughout Europe, China, West Africa, and India, and has given popular and practical talks all across North America, where his emotionally charged presentations help spread a positive message about the possibilities of a sustainable future, one mind at a time.

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

• • • • • • • • •

Financing Retrofits Green Landscaping Tarion Smart Meters – Technical & Legal Lean & Green Eco-Condo Clean Air LEED Session Fire/Emergency/Safety Good Governance Legal Super Session Grow Ops Gerry, John & Mark’s Fascinating World of Condominiums

Visit the Conference website at www.condoconference.ca to register online or download a registration form. Exhibit and Sponsorship opportunities are also available. IN PARTNERSHIP WITH

Celebrating 25 Years!

Licensing Sub-Metering Activities requires commercial sub-metering entities that provide condominiums with smart metering technology, equipment and services to be licensed by the Ontario Energy Board, effective December 31, 2007. Various other regulations address a range of smart metering issues.

At the same time, many condominium Boards will recognize that they can in fact achieve significant energy savings and cost savings (despite acquisition, installation, administration and collection costs) by installing smart submetering equipment within units. Even though smart metering will no longer be a mandatory requirement, in situations where each unit has its own heating, air conditioning and other energy consumption equipment which can be governed by a smart meter or a smart sub-meter, the environmental protection ethic, supported by energy cost savings which can arise when individual unit owners can control their own energy consumption, may prove to be as significant as other potential energysaving initiatives, especially once timeof-consumption billing is imposed.

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

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

CARL C. FRANZEN INTERNATIONAL Consultants and Property Managers

Tel: (416) 366-4975 ext. 24 Fax: (416) 366-6473 Email: mailbox@ccfranzen.com

Condominiums intending to take advantage of smart metering energy savings must take care to obtain legal advice to clarify whether the wording of their declarations and by-laws will constitute individual hydro consumption costs as a common expense of the corporation and whether or not such amounts can be collected by means of the lien priority sections contained in the Condominium Act, 1998, as amended. Boards should also seek legal advice to ascertain whether any costs of acquisition, installation, renovation, maintenance, additions, alterations or improvements can be characterized as a “major repair and replacement” which qualifies for expenditure of reserve funds. The corporation’s lawyer should assess whether any “addition, alteration or improvement” to the common elements or assets of the corporation or any change in service provided to the owners constitutes a “substantial alteration”, or an alteration upon notice to Fall 2007

thecondovoice

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

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

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP Barristers and Solicitors

GMA - The Condolawyersâ&#x201E;˘ (Winning Condominium Law Solutions)

We led the battle for improvements to the new Act and Regulations

Our standard of excellence focuses on practical legal solutions for Condominium Boards J. Robert Gardiner Mark H. Arnold Gerald T. Miller Christopher Jaglowitz Warren D. Ragoonanan

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

the owners or an improvement involving modern construction materials or an alteration which can be undertaken by the board of directors acting alone

tion or an existing by-law preclude the need to enact an easement, lease or licensing by-law, as would otherwise be required by s. 21 of the Act.

the CCI Legislative Committee will be proposing to the Ministry of Government Services.

Condominiums intending to take advantage of smart metering energy savings must take care to obtain legal advice… without notice to the owners pursuant to s. 97 (2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

If any easement, lease or licence is required to be granted by the condominium corporation through its common elements to enable any smart metering equipment to be installed and operated, consider whether s. 12 or 20 of the Condominium Act, create legally valid easements, or whether easements referred to in Schedule “A” attached to the corporation’s declara-

These condo legal issues and concerns were not addressed in either the Energy Conservation Leadership Act, 2006, the Electricity Act, 1998, the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 or their numerous regulations, despite the writer’s four legal briefs urging that environmentally-conscious condominium boards be given legislative tools to simply initiate smart metering programs on a streamlined basis. I expect these issues will be added to the list of Condominium Act Amendments which

Personally, while I am pleased to see CCI-Toronto’s effective lobbying efforts in conjunction with all CCI Ontario branches and ACMO, I am overjoyed to throw out three thick files. *J. Robert Gardiner, B.A., LL.B., ACCI, FCCI, is senior partner in the law firm Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP, practicing condominium law in Toronto. I

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

Upcoming Fall CCI Events Toronto Condo Show 2007

Condo 101 Course Date:

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Time:

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

Location: Novotel North York Hotel Cost:

$60 for CCI Members and $95 for Non Members

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

Basic Condominium Course Dates:

Tuesday, September 25th, October 2nd, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th

Time:

7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. each evening

Location: Novotel North York Hotel Cost:

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

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

11th Annual CCI/ACMO Condominium Conference: Building Better Communities – Going Green! Dates:

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

Times:

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

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

Early Bird rate for members registering before Sept. 24th is $275. Non-member fee is $400

This popular two day conference and trade show designed for condominium managers, directors, owners and others interested in ‘everything condominium’ will focus this year on ‘Building Better Communities – Going Green”. The spectacular line up of speakers and topics to be covered this year are sure to offer “green” ideas and solutions to managers and directors alike. The conference will kick off with a keynote presentation by Guy Dauncey, an international speaker, who is also the founder and President of the BC Sustainable Energy Association. Guy will share a vital and upbeat message about our planet, and the many ways in which we can help to sustain it. Other session topics include: Green Landscaping, Energy Savings for the New Milenium, Grow-Ops, LEED Buildings, Smart Metering, Dealing with TARION, Second Hand Smoke and Other Smells, Fire/Emergency Response, Business Integrity, Ask Gerry, and the Year’s Review and Case Law Update. Sponsorship and exhibit opportunities are still available – visit www.condoconference.ca for full conference details.

Dates/Times: Friday. October 19th – 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Saturday. October 20th – 10 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Sunday. October 21st – 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Location: Metro Toronto Convention Center Cost:

Be sure to visit the CCI booth while at the Toronto Condo Show!

CCI-National Human Rights Symposium Date:

Wednesday October 31, 2007

Time:

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

Location: Doubletree International Plaza Hotel – 655 Dixon Road Condominiums and Human Rights….A symposium on Human Rights issues as they affect condominiums. Where have we been and where are we going? What is the Impact on day-to-day administration? This session will deal with human rights complaints and claims on both a national and local level. For more information, or to register online, visit the CCI-National website at: www.cci.ca

CCI-National 25th Anniversary Gala Dinner Date:

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Time:

6:00 p.m.

Location: Doubletree International Plaza Hotel Don’t miss out on a part of history – dinner, awards, gifts, giveaways, surprises and more! Check the CCI National website at www.cci.ca for further details or to register online.

Mark your calendars! 38

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

$10 Admission Fee

New Members Welcome to the Following New CCI Toronto Members Corporate Members MTCC # 0565 PCC # 0207

TSCC # 1753 TSCC # 1805

VCC # 0015 The Edgewater

Professional Members

Ali Moazzam Channel Property Management Ltd.

Soni Sujit Channel Property Management Ltd.

YCC # 0015

Sponsor (Trade) Members

YRCC # 0570

Greg Ranson Bell Canada

YCC # 0078

YRVLCC # 1079

Individual Members D. Zeidman F. Sinclair J. Wasnie

G. Loskow L. Duncan R. Rosati

Greg Hill Maple Tree Services

Joe Langarini Brady & Seidner Associates Ltd.

Randy Mason Condominium Services Group

Bruno Suppa SUPPA Corpland Contracting Ltd. Creighton Hooper Municipal Media Inc.

Nadine Chevolleau Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd.

CORRECTION In the Summer 2007 issue of The Condo Voice, Michael Clifton’s article “Heeding Professional Advice in Good Faith” was reprinted from the August 2006 issue of CCI - Golden Horseshoe Chapter’s Condo News. The by-line in The Condo Voice indicated Michael is a lawyer at McCarter Grespan Beynon Thompson LLP. However, Michael left that firm in January 2007 and now practices in partnership with Mark Kok, a corporate/commercial and condominium development lawyer, as Clifton Kok LLP. The Condo Voice was not aware of this change, but wishes to clear up any confusion that might have been caused by the by-line in our Summer 2007 issue.

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

Odyssey of a Lawyer being Appointed Administrator – Part One BY: ARMAND G.R. CONANT B.ENG., LL.B., D.E.S.S. (SORBONNE) MACLAREN, CORLETT LLP

he court appointment of administrators pursuant to Section 131 of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act’) is still relatively rare in Ontario, however, I believe it will increase as more and more corporations are developed and they age. This will be an unfortunate evolution because it will mean that more corporations are in essence becoming dysfunctional from a governance point of view.

fessionals that have been appointed as administrators. The major obstacle preventing other professions, and in my case, a lawyer, from being appointed is the inability to obtain negligence insurance (“E&O”).

I found this out the hard way because in January of this year I was appointed by the court as a full administrator with all the powers of the Board (I became a one person Board) for an indefinite

We then diligently searched everywhere for insurance. Even with the kind help of Mark Shedden of AtrensCounsel and trying small boutique insurers, we came up empty handed. We were advised by the insurers that they would give E&O coverage to property managers because they considered the duties of an administrator to be an extension of their normal property management duties. This however, would not apply to lawyers.

However, we were both surprised to learn that the normal insurance carried by lawyers would not cover me in my capacity as an administrator Section 132(2) of the Act states that the court may make the order if it is of the opinion that “it would be just or convenient, having regard to the scheme and intent of the Act and the best interests of the owners.”

As far as this writer can determine, except for the Skyline case where Gerry Hyman was appointed the administrator for a specific purpose, up until now property managers have been the pro-

duration. At that time, Elia Associate, the law firm who acted for the applicant corporation, and I thought that a lawyer would have little trouble obtaining E&O insurance. However, we were both surprised to learn that the normal insurance carried by lawyers would not cover me in my capacity as an administrator because the insurer considered the responsibilities of an administrator to be outside the normal role of a lawyer.

Given the warring factions in the corporation and my exposure to the liability, I had to step down as administrator, even though the court ordered that I was to be completely indemnified by the corporation. The court then appointed another administrator. That was the situation until July of this year.

Concerns arose with a new conversion condominium corporation (converted Fall 2007

thecondovoice

from a department store) that was registered in February 2006. In this case the declarant still owned a majority of the units and controlled the Board (the principal of the declarant, his wife and their relative comprised the entire Board).

All of the other owners in the corporation raised serious concerns and claims about the corporation, including its management, financial situation, incomplete state of the building, and lately discovered environmental contamination in parts of the building. The owners commenced a lawsuit and sought a court appointed administrator and inspector. The declarant and former Board members dispute these claims and are defending the lawsuit. The matter was very urgent as the owners were facing two final orders from the local authorities. The first was a building wide eviction order due to severe fire safety issues (a “Prohibition to Live” order), which was to take effect the day after the hearing of the application. The second was an “Electricity Disconnect” order due to electrical deficiencies, which was to take effect four days later.

To compound the problem, environmental contamination (primarily asbestos) had been discovered in parts of the building and thus the Ministry of Labour (worker safety department) issued an order prohibiting any workers from entering the building and undertaking any remedial work until a full “Designated Substances” analysis was done and all environmental abatement work was completed to their satisfaction.

Robert Mullin of SmithValeriote Law Firm LLP acted for the applicants and asked if I would agree to submit my name as a candidate to be the administrator. I was prepared to do so, but pointed out my previous experience and that it was impossible to find E&O insurance. The court was advised of this problem, but it appointed me administrator and

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

solved the E&O problem by ordering that I was “exempt from any liability to any party for all acts as administrator, except acts which are dishonest”. In light of this I could accept the appointment and am now the administrator.

As far as we can tell, this is the first time such a provision has been included in an order for the appointment of

an administrator. However, it is similar to the typical order for the appointment of a receiver in bankruptcy matters.

It is interesting to note that the court also ordered that I was to obtain fidelity bonding and E&O insurance but only if available. I have continued my search for such insurance but so far cannot find any.

It is not clear if this type of order would be repeated in other cases, as it was based on urgency and was granted on an interim or temporary basis, to be reviewed 60 days later. However, it is still novel for the condominium industry, and until the insurance industry provides E&O insurance it may allow other professions to become administrators, although perhaps only in limited circumstances.

This article is about a lawyer being appointed as administrator, but for those who are wondering about the fate of the owners, I was appointed at about 4:00 p.m. the day before the “Prohibition to Live” order was to take effect and the owners were to be evicted from the building.

We worked very hard from the outset, and thanks to the wonderful cooperation of the owners and various professionals we were able to work with the

local municipality and by 5:00 pm the next day, the two orders were extended. The owners are still in their homes as we continue our work to have the orders lifted and deal with the other problems with the corporation.

There is still a tremendous amount of work to do to help the owners, but I believe that we are on the right track. The challenges at times seem daunting, but there is great satisfaction in helping others and trying to solve such problems. What some of these challenges are, and how we are dealing with them will be left for another time and article.

However, this writer firmly believes that all professionals in our industry must work to help all parties in these types of troubled situations in order to help foster and maintain a vibrant and growing condominium community.

Armand Conant, B.ENG, LL.B., DESS (Sorbonne), is head of the condominium department for the Toronto office of Maclaren, Corlett LLP and represents numerous condominium corporations in Toronto and the GTA. Armand is a member of the Board of CCI (Toronto) and a Vice-President. He is also Chair of its Legislative Committee and a member of CCI National’s Government Relations Committee. He has written articles for many publications and has lectured before ACMO, Humber College and at the annual ACMO/CCI Conference, on various aspects of condominium law. Armand also holds an engineering degree and is fluent in French. I

CONDOMINIUM DIVISION ® ® ® ® ®

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

® ® ® ®

In-Suite Security Systems Card Entry Systems Underground Parking Lot Duress/Panic Systems Video Surveillance Systems

INTEGRATED ELECTRONIC SECURITY 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

Serving over 200 properties in the GTA... and growing!

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

CCI TORONTO PRESIDENTS CLUB D INNER

JOIN US FOR A

NETWORKING DINNER FOR CONDO PRESIDENTS Friday October 19th, 2007 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. Metro Toronto Convention Center – North Building 255 Front Street West, Toronto ON M5V 2W6 CCI is pleased to offer a unique opportunity for Condo Presidents to interact with each other and industry experts. Come and join us for dinner and round table discussions. Have an opportunity to present your situation/issues and hear possible solutions. Seating will be arranged to include a CCI condo expert at each table to facilitate group discussions.

Presented in conjunction with the Toronto Condo Show – taking place October 19-21st at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. Visit www.torontocondoshow.com for full details and show hours

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

Director’s Corner

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS BY MR D.

I have received the following question under the heading “Maximum occupancy load”

How to effectively limit the number of persons to two (2) per sleeping room under the existing Condo Laws and Rules as well as Human Rights codes? In making any rules for Condominium living one has to be able to enforce these rules through a court of law. With this in mind I am doubtful that you could enforce such a rule notwithstanding any Human Rights violation, an area that is not within my expertise.

How do you determine whether an expense can be paid out of the reserve fund and what are the enforceable penalties if payments are knowingly made incorrectly?

Firstly the Act 93.(2) “Reserve Fund” says “A reserve fund shall be solely used for the purpose of major repairs and replacement of the common elements and assets of the Corporation.”

If the Board has any doubts of whether or not an item qualifies or not they must do due diligence by obtaining a written opinion from a professional person, either the Corporation’s Lawyer or Accountant would suffice. If the Board makes a decision without taking advice then they leave themselves open to litigation.

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

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

The 2008 Annual Professional and Trades Services Directory is

coming soon…

Professional and Trade members should watch their mail in mid October for a confirmation of their listing information. Changes and updates must be made by November 16th, 2007.

Advertising opportunities are also available to members only. This annual resource guide is a fantastic way to promote your products or services to the condominium community in the Greater Toronto Area.

Don’t delay… contact Marie McNamee today at (905) 852-2802 or by email at marie@mcnamee.ca

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

Have you visited the ‘Member’s Only’ area of the CCI Toronto Website?

If not, check out www.ccitoronto.org/Login.asp to view archived issues of the CondoVoice, the 2007 Professional & Trade Services directory and Nomination Forms for those interested in running in the 2007 elections for the CCI Toronto & Area Board of Directors.

www.ccitoronto.org/Login.asp DONNA SWANSON ACCI, FRI

Real Estate Brokerage

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

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

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

Email: donnaswanson@sympatico.ca

Have you Renewed Your Membership for 2007-2008? To date, over 70% of CCI Toronto members have renewed their memberships for the 2007-2008 membership year. Have you?

Your support of the Institute provides CCI with a greater voice when working on Government Relations initiatives such our recent success with the Ministry of Energy regarding the Regulations to Smart Metering legislative (see Press Release enclosed with this mailing or on our website at www.ccitoronto.org).

Membership with CCI also offers many other benefits to individuals, corporations, professionals and trades to the industry – including discounts on courses, seminars, publications and the annual CCI conference and numerous networking opportunities. Renew your membership today!

(If you have not received a copy of your renewal invoice, please contact our membership co-ordinator, Cathie Breton at 416-491-6216 Ext. 254

Have you Recently had your Condo AGM?

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

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

Act, 1998 Condominium minium Canadian Condo

Institute

of forms and extracts I cluding Selected n 0/ 1 ions 480/ 1 and 49 Ontario Regulat Managers Directors and for Condominium

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

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

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

Check Out the CCI Bookstore

at www.ccitoronto.org Resource material for Condominium Owners, Managers and Boards of Directors

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

Diversions & Distractions CONDO WORD FIND act add am annual bound broom built called can cloud condominium court debit dell deposit description designated dish

draw duties elect elements enter extend fee hall haze held hire hold into law lawns lid location mould

national notices new own plan pm premiums presented preside procedure qualify rely rewarding shares sneak sound tenant term

Fall 2007

terms the title to trust up use value veto votes wall will windows wish work

thecondovoice

Canadian Condominium Institute 2007 Symposia Program

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE EVERYONE’S RESPONSIBILITY SPONSORED AND ORGANIZED BY

THE

CANADIAN CONDOMINIUM INSTITUTE WITH PARTICIPATION OF

THE

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

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

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 • Full Day Event – 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Doubletree International Plaza Hotel, 655 Dixon Road, Toronto, Ontario OPENING ADDRESS: Barbara Hall, LLB, Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission

KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Michael Gottheil, Chair, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario SPEAKERS:

Julius H. Grey, LLB, Grey & Casgrain Harry Herskowitz, LLB, DelZotto, Zorzi LLP Peter Engelmann, LLB, Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP J. Robert Gardiner, LLB and Mark H. Arnold, LLB, Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP

Visit the CCI-National website at www.cci.ca/Events/index.html for information and Symposia Sponsorship Opportunities.

Educational Credits applied for – please inquire.

When “Personal Service Beyond The Contract” Really Counts! There Is Only One Name

Property Management Services Inc. 1256 Cardiff Blvd., Unit A Mississauga, Ontario Phone: (905) 696 (8376) Fax: (905) 696-0729

jvero@veropropertymanagement.com www.veropropertymanagement.com Condominium Property Management Specialists

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

Total Security Solutions for Condominiums • • • • •

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

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

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

Fall 2007

thecondovoice

List of Advertisers A.R. Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 ACMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Active Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Adams Masin & Tilley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Arthur Fire Protection Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Atrens Management Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Brady & Seidner Associates Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Brokers Trust Insurance Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 Brookfield Residential Services Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Brown & Beattie Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Canlight Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Carma Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 CCF Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Certified Clean Air Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Chubb Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Condominium Living Management (CLM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Cochrane GENIVAR Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Condominium Services Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Construction Control Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Corpland Contracting Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 CPL Design Interiors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Davroc Consulting Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Donna Swanson Real Estate Brokerage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 D-Tech (Nexus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 E.J. Walsh & Co. Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Enbridge Electric Connections Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 Enbridge Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Enerplan Building Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 Essential Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Fine & Deo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Firenza Plumbing & Heating Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Gerald R. Genge Building Consultants Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 G4S Security Services Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 GSA Property Management Specialists Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Nadlan-Harris Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Horlick Levitt Barristers & Solicitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 ICC Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 JCO & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Larlyn Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Les Consultants Ingenium (Condo Manager Software) . . . . .44 Maple Hill Tree Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 M & E Engineering Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Maclaren Corlett LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Malvern Condominium Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Maxium Condo Finance Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 McCall Wynne Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Metro Group of Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Miller Thomson LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Morrison Hershfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Ontario Screen Systems Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Percel Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Pro-House Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 Provident Energy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 RBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 RIKOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 Rogers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Rumack, Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Samuel Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Sayland Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 Seal-Tite Roofing & Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Soundivide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 SR Wise Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Stratacon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Summa Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Suncorp Valuations Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Toronto Hydro Energy Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Toronto Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Vero Property Management Services Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Waste Solutions Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Whiterose Janitorial Services Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Wilson Blanchard Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

thecondovoice

Fall 2007

“TheCondoVoice” is published 4 times per year – Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter, by the Canadian Condominium Institute - Toronto & Area Chapter. Newsletter Directors: Mario Deo & Brian Horlick Editor: Ruth Max Advertising: Marie McNamee Composition: E-Graphics

All advertising enquiries should be directed to Marie McNamee at (905) 852-2802 or marie@mcnamee.ca, or cci.toronto@taylorenterprises.com. Publications Mail Agreement #40047005 - Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to Circulation Dept. 2175 Sheppard Ave. E., Suite 310, Toronto, ON M2J 1W8

The author, the Canadian Condominium Institute and its representatives will not be held liable in any respect whatsoever for any statement or advice contained herein. Articles should not be relied upon as a professional opinion or as an authoritative or comprehensive answer in any case. Professional advice should be obtained after discussing all particulars applicable in the specific circumstances in order to obtain an opinion or report capable of absolving condominium directors from liability [under s. 37 (3) (b) of the Condominium Act, 1998]. Authors’ views expressed in any article are not necessarily those of the Canadian Condominium Institute. All contributors are deemed to have consented to publication of any information provided by them, including business or personal contact information. Consider supporting the advertisers and service providers referred to in this magazine, recognizing that they have been supporters of CCI. Advertisements are paid advertising and do not imply endorsement of or any liability whatsoever on the part of CCI with respect to any product, service or statement.