www.ccitoronto.org
VOL. 11, NO. 3 • SPRING 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
Healthy Condos How does your building measure up?
IN THIS ISSUE ■
Unhealthy Condos – Tracking Down the REAL Problems
■
Beware of New Asbestos Regulation Regulations
■
The Myth of Cents Per Square Foot
■
Security Issues
■
The noises Noisesand andSmells Smells of Condo Living
Fire Prevention Inhibiting the Outbreak … and more
■
PM #40047005
"5),$ 4/ ,!34 2%42/&)4 4/ 3!6% .OBODY WANTS TO SEE MONEY FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS 4HAT S WHY ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS ARE A SOUND INVESTMENT 4ORONTO (YDRO %NERG Y 3ER VICES OFFERS COMPLETE ENERGY MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 7HETHER YOU NEED ENERGY PROFILING A RETROlT OR A COMPLETE OVERHAUL WE HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO CUT YOUR BUILDING S ENERGY COSTS /UR ASSESSMENT IS THOROUGH OUR APPROACH IS TAILORED YOUR SAVINGS ARE GUARANTEED
)NCREASING ENERGY PRICES AND AN UNCERTAIN SUPPLY WILL CREATE HIDDEN OPPORTUNITIES
IF YOU KNOW WHERE TO LOOK 7E CAN HELP YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE #ALL US TO lND OUT MORE 4(ENERGYSERVICES COM &IGURE AND STAR DESIGN IS A TRADEMARK OF 4ORONTO (YDRO #ORPORATION USED UNDER LICENCE
Contents Canadian Condominium Institute / Institut canadien des condominiums Toronto & Area Chapter 2175 Sheppard Ave. E., Suite 310 Toronto, Ontario M2J 1W8 Tel.: (416) 491-6216 Fax: (416) 491-1670 E-mail: cci.toronto@taylorenterprises.com Website: www.ccitoronto.org
Features
6 9 12
SECRETARY/TREASURER Bob Girard, B.Comm, RCM (Chair: Special Projects Committee) AA Property Management & Associates
PAST PRESIDENT Janice Pynn, RCM, ACCI, FCCI (CCI National Liaison, CAI Liaison) Simerra Property Management Inc.
16
Henry Cohen (Member, Special Projects 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 Tom Park, P.Eng (Member, Membership Committee Member, Website Committee) Golder Associates Ltd. Vic Persaud, BA (Chair, Website Committee Member, Membership Committee) Suncorp Valuations Ltd. Bill Thompson, BA, RCM, ACCI (Chair, Membership Committee) Malvern Condominium Property Management
EX OFFICIO DIRECTOR Jasmine Martirossian, B.A., M.A., PhD.
ADMINISTRATOR - Lynn Morrovat ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT - Josee Lefebvre
The Myth of Cents Per Square Foot by John Warren, CA
Security Issues by Denise Lash, B.Sc., LL.B., ACCI, FCCI How much - and how effective - security is, will ultimately depend on how much residents are willing to pay. Security goes hand in hand with costs.
18
Fire Prevention: Inhibiting the Outbreak by Fred P. Baumgartner and Ray Goulet The main objective of a Fire Safety Plan (FSP) is to increase fire safety awareness for residents and minimize life-threatening situations.
22
Building Healthy and Happy Relationships Between Management, Directors and Residents by Steven Christodoulou, R.C.M.
BOARD MEMBERS Gina Cody, P.Eng., M.Eng., Ph.D., ACCI, FCCI (Chair, Education Committee, CAI Liaison) Construction Control Inc.
by Gina Cody, P.Eng., M.Eng., Ph.D., ACCI, FCCI
Using this calculation to compare condominiums is like using a chain saw to sculpt a copy of a famous statue.
VICE-PRESIDENTS
Mario Deo, LL.B. (Co-chair, Public Relations Committee Member, Conference Committee) Fine & Deo LLP
Beware of New Asbestos Regulation There is no denying that asbestos is toxic, so it's imperative to comply with Ontario's new regulations.
PRESIDENT
Armand Conant, B.Eng., LL.B., D.E.S.S. (Chair, Legislative Committee) Maclaren Corlett LLP
by Kim Strong & Les Woods Proper maintenance of the handling system, other building systems and structural elements are critical.
2006/2007 Board of Directors John Warren, C.A. (Co-chair, Conference Committee, CAI Liaison) Adams, Masin & Tilley LLP
Unhealthy Condos: Tracking Down the REAL Problems
In Property Management, a large part of the job revolves around communicating. Here are several ways to achieve this.
26
The Noises and Smells of Condo Living by Brian Horlick, B.Comm., B.C.L., LL.B., ACCI Two of the more frequent problems which condominium corporations and unit owners must deal with are issues of noise and odours.
32
Avoiding Double Taxation for Common Amenity Units by J. Robert Gardiner, B.A. LL.B., ACCI, FCCI A summary of an effort to establish an industry-wide precedent to avoid double taxation on both a Guest Unit and a residential unit in a condominium community.
37
Can You Save a Life? by John Collie AEDs have become very affordable and easy to use.
CCI News 5 39 41 43 44 47
President’s Message Member News Director’s Corner New Members Upcoming Events Diversions & Distractions
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
3
President’s Message
2
007 is a new year and I am honoured to be President of the CCI-Toronto and Area Chapter. I would like to thank Past Presidents Janice Pynn and her predecessor Bob Gardiner, for without their support and sage advice, I would be substantially more apprehensive about my role than I find myself. They and all who have served over the years nurtured an organization that has, by their efforts, truly become “The Voice of Condominium� in the Greater Toronto and surrounding areas. They passed that organization on, in excellent health, to the current Directors and we will work to make it better again. I would also like to thank the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario for their participation in the partnership we have forged over the years that enables both organizations to achieve goals we would be hard put to achieve individually. Together, we put on the premier condominium conference that annually provides the best in condominium education and information and we have shared a number of lobbying and other efforts over the years to ensure that condominium concerns are heard. 2006, our 10th conference, with the special support of Rogers Cable, was the best yet. Lastly, thanks to the professionals and suppliers who support our organization financially and by their participation on the Board and its committees, by writing articles, by speaking at or taking a booth at the annual conference and by speaking at educational courses and seminars. Their willingness to share their specialized knowledge and expertise for the benefit of all condominiums enables us to ensure you get current information on the changes that affect condominiums. Please obtain a copy of our professional and trade directory and support those therein, they are a fine group and we recommend them to you. Our educational courses and seminars continue to be very well received; we have a busy schedule in the making for 2007 and plans are afoot to make our courses even better. There are a lot of initiatives that we are working on, of particular note are the issues surrounding smart metering and you will hear more about these issues as events unfold. It will be an interesting year for everyone involved in condominiums and I look forward to meeting as many of you as possible as we work together to advance the cause of condominiums. All the best to you and to yours.
John Warren President, CCI Toronto & Area Chapter
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
5
Unhealthy Condos: Tracking Down the REAL Problems KIM STRONG, MARITIME TESTING (1985) LIMITED, DARTMOUTH, NS LES WOODS, CERTIFIED CLEAN AIR SERVICES, MISSISSAUGA, ON
Conventional wisdom says the cause of unhealthy high-rise residential buildings is due to a lack of fresh air from the energy (HVAC) system. Should you accept that premise, you have fallen into a logic trap. 6
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
I
ndoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) in a building, as well as the energy system, is inextricably bound, yet the energy system is seldom the cause of IEQ problems. Poorly designed or maintained systems contribute by creating conditions that encourage the spread and severity of problems, but the source and blame for many IEQ problems lies elsewhere. An energy system conceived as part of an environmental program provides building occupants with physical comfort as well as optimum conditions for productivity and health. Conversely, a system that ignores environmental effects, and focuses solely on energy efficiency, can cost millions of dollars in lost time and productivity, occupant healthcare, and ultimately in renovation or remediation.
The Energy System Indictment IEQ has become a major focus of legal, public, and regulatory attention, while our modern energy efficient buildings stand accused. Is the Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) phenomenon simply an overblown exploitation of another new victim? People assume that SBS must be a high-tech problem with a high-tech cause. Despite repeated alerts from microbiologists and medical researchers, we tend to ignore the potential danger of the fuzzy green and
gray stuff that smells and grows in our buildings. We’ve also ignored concerns regarding disease-causing germs left on everything we touch and breathe on. It’s time to remedy that mistake.
The Fuzzy Gray Stuff Microorganisms (or microbes) are part of our everyday lives and environments. By the time they are large enough to see, you aren’t looking at one microorganism; you are looking at hundreds or millions. At that point the question isn’t whether or not you have microbial contamination, it’s How badly? and How dangerous are the organisms? In indoor environments, microbes are found on all environmental surfaces, in the air and in water associated with both normal and catastrophic situations. The few highly publicized outbreaks of Legionnaires Disease and the more complex indoor issues of today such as Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) and Building Related Illness (BRI) have begun to put microbiologists and microbiological sciences in the headlines and on the line.
The Building Biosphere A building can be thought of as a biosphere containing organisms in a constant flux. Nutrient and humidity
changes, as well as alteration of life-limiting (toxic) surfaces, allow microbes to adjust and adapt to ever-changing conditions in their environment. The buildings in which these organisms thrive are not simple environments. They are increasingly complex ecosystems developed as a result of constant changes a building undergoes in its life cycle. Associated with buildings and their inhabitants are the full range of microorganisms: bacteria, fungi, viruses and algae. They are particularly potent as they can amplify and cause the full breadth of discomfort, irritation, sensitisation, toxic reaction and disease we associate with indoor environmental quality.
What Causes Microbial Exposure? Microorganisms in a building are complex. Every element of a building, its furnishings and its people, offers a home for microorganisms. Microorganisms need moisture and nutrients, and more than 95% need to be associated with a surface. Moisture can come from catastrophic or normal events – a leaking roof, sweating pipe, leaking radiator, condensation, humidified air from the HVAC system, and countless other sources. A condominium facility often compounds the problem with moisture from pools, spas, individual air conditioners and hundreds of bathrooms. This, coupled with wall-to-wall carpeting, draperies, wall coverings, furniture, bedding and ceiling tiles, creates ideal habitats for microorganisms. Given acceptable growth conditions, some types can multiply from one individual organism to more than one billion in just 18 hours.
Airborne Pollution Although organisms grow and survive for extended periods on receptive building surfaces, they become airborne through normal occupant traffic and activities such as vacuuming. Once airborne, the HVAC systems, makeup
maintenance of HVAC systems to permit better temperature and humidity control and better filtration. This does not address microbial infestation or eliminate growth sources, but it can reduce the rate of mildew growth.
Elevator buttons require protection. air shafts and elevator shafts transport the microorganisms throughout the building. They settle on other receptive surfaces and begin to reproduce or transport from person to person.
Traditional Solutions For years, mould and bacteria have been recognized as major causes of problems in buildings, although most of the recognition had focused on odours, rot and unsightly growth rather than on human health problems. There has been an unending array of products, cleaners, chemicals, devices, strategies, and methods available to combat microbial problems from mildew to pathogenic bacteria as follows: • Housekeeping procedures: Housekeeping professionals regularly scrutinize building spaces and remove any visible growth. Detergent/sanitizer products are effective short-term tools against visible mould and mildew as well as bacteria and other “germs” found on high-touch surfaces. All are shortterm solutions and many of the products present their own toxicity problems. As problems develop, cleaning personnel frequently use perfumes and fragrances to mask or disguise the problem, creating more of a problem than they solve for allergic and sensitive individuals. • Engineering procedures: Most tactics in this category include selection, operation, modification, and
• Industrial hygiene procedures: Most industrial hygienists and health professionals have challenged the importance of added fresh air and have concentrated on identifying and removing and/or containing sources of pollutants (chemicals) and routes of pollutant transmission. This focus has created an army of consultants and a very lucrative testing industry. Unfortunately, most authorities concede they have been able to identify a specific cause in less than twenty percent of acknowledged sick buildings. • Additional procedures: As buildings age, the normal routines of clean-up and masking become less effective. Mould and mildew adapt to conventional sanitizers and biocides, and many develop immunity. We also see that certain species of fungi will find the engineered humidity and temperatures to their liking and will begin to thrive. As we adjust our indoor environments for the comfort of occupants, we also create ideal habitats for a large variety of microorganisms. When this happens, major corrective actions are required. These include replacement of furnishings such as carpeting and other soft goods, major building repairs and upgrading components of the HVAC system.
A Non-Traditional Solution In 1969, researchers at Dow Corning Corporation discovered a unique way to attach biocidal agents permanently and directly to a wide variety of surfaces. The resulting non-volatile polymer is unique among antimicrobials as it does not create a zone of inhibition and does not dissipate over time. This extraordinary technology permits Spring 2007
thecondovoice
7
continuous, durable activity against mildew required to prevent infestation. As the material does not lose effectiveness through absorption or dissipation, microorganisms have never been shown to develop immunity against it. For the very first time, Dow Corning’s new technology has made it possible to actually control the growth and survival of mould, bacteria and other microorganisms on any treated Treated surface with AEGIS Microbe Shield. surface – even after repeated cleanings and extended use. Defensive Strategies to Reduce This unique technology, now the AEGIS Microbe Shield, is widely used the Risk and is known for its long-term effectiveness in the control of microbial conProper maintenance of the air handling tamination in indoor environments. system, other buildings systems and Case histories and peer review publistructural elements are critical. The cations show how this material, as part transport routes of infiltration and of a total IEQ program, provides relief exfiltration, especially make-up air and protection from indoor microbial shafts, elevator shafts and cooling coils, problems. are commonly neglected and must be
8
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
maintained and protected. Even doorknobs, elevator buttons and similar high-touch surfaces can serve as carriers for bacterial transmission and can be protected. Proper targeting of surfaces will mitigate existing problems and greatly lower the odds of future contamination.
The Future With technologies in hand, we are at the threshold where energy management principals and benefits can be merged with the critical needs for improved IEQ. We can’t ignore the critical relationship between energy management and the indoor environment. We need greater understanding and coordinated efforts within the professions and governmental agencies charged with addressing these vital issues. ■
Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP Barristers and Solicitors
GMA - The Condolawyers™ (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
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
9
ONTARIO REGULATION 278/05
BEWARE OF NEW ASBESTOS REGULATIONS ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT PLAN: A MUST BY NOVEMBER 2007 BY GINA CODY, P.ENG., M.ENG., PH.D., ACCI, FCCI CONSTRUCTION CONTROL INC. New Asbestos Regulations Over the past few years, we have been concerned with liability issues related to mould and mould remediation. But the new regulations for asbestos make this type of remediation as onerous as with mould. If you are removing drywall in excess of one square meter, and it contains asbestos, you now need to consider the procedures as mould remediation. The regulations have not been loudly trumpeted so the changes may catch some by surprise. However the new rules were proclaimed by the government effective November 2005. O. Reg 278/05, as it is called, replaced O. Reg 838/90 that was unchanged since 1985. There is no denying that asbestos is toxic. Obviously we want a safe working environment to ensure the wellbeing of anyone dealing with asbestos. It should be noted that asbestos is the leading cause of death for construction workers. In Ontario, 84 per cent of all occupational disease fatalities between 1995 and 2004 were asbestos related, with mesothelioma (an asbestosinduced cancer) representing the vast majority of fatalities. We hear a lot about the dangers of being out in the sun for too long. But did you know that asbestos kills more Americans each year than skin cancer, according to recent U.S. statistics? 10
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
Building and maintenance workers are especially at risk to asbestosrelated disease. That is why many jurisdictions have put teeth into their regulations. For its part Ontario—with O. Reg 278/05 — has played catch-up to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other jurisdictions. The changes brought by Queen’s Park will no doubt increase worker protection. First you have to determine if there is asbestos in the building. Then you must notify the residents and implement a management program for the restoration and maintenance work. The technical aspects are straightforward and determined by the testing. After samples are drawn and taken to a lab, you will know within a week what is in store for the asbestos remediation and/or management. O. Reg 278/05 revised and reclassified certain asbestos procedures for Type 1, 2 and 3 operations. When it comes to drywall with asbestos-containing joint compound, the removal of less than one square meter of drywall remains a Type 1 operation. Anything larger becomes Type 2. This requirement is in line with other provinces, such as Newfoundland, Alberta and British Columbia. The cost impact in Ontario will be huge, considering that most buildings constructed with drywall prior to the mid-1980s probably
contains asbestos-containing joint compound. There’s a big difference between Type 1 and 2 operations. Type 1 procedures require little more than just dust control. Type 2 is serious business – protective suits and respirators, site and air isolation, the wetting of the compound and the handling of the waste, and the more thorough reporting. Type 3 is the classification for larger remediation work. It includes measures relating to the spray application of sealant to friable asbestos-containing material, or the repairing/demolishing of a building in which asbestos was used unless that asbestos was removed prior March 16, 1986. It remains to be seen how vigilant the Ministry of Labour will be in enforcing the new rules. But the legal repercussions for owners and employers can be daunting if proper precautions are not taken. A look at our litigious neighbours south of the border shows what may be in store. In 2003, more than 100,000 claimants sued in the U.S. for asbestos related illness. Another significant change with O. Reg 278/05 pertains to asbestos containing ceiling tiles. The removal of less than 7.5 square metres of tiles is classified as Type 1 work. A larger area is Type 2 removal. Again, it means significant added cost for the safe removal
of asbestos containing ceiling tiles. O. Reg 278/05 classifies asbestos materials according to friability. If something is friable, it can be crumbled, pulverized or powdered in your hand. The more common friable asbestos containing materials include insulation on mechanical systems (pipes, tanks, boilers and ducts); sprayed or troweled fireproofing, insulation, soundproofing; texture and acoustic plaster; acoustic ceiling tiles and drywall installed with ACM joint compound prior to mid 1980’s (up to 1987). The non-friable ACMs used in construction cover materials such as vinyl floor tiles and sheet flooring; asbestos – cement (Transite) products, paper products and wallpaper; smooth plasters, acoustic tiles post 1982 and drywall installed with ACM joint compound. O. Reg 278/05 clearly spells out the new requirements for bulk samples in a survey. All asbestos-suspect materials must be tested or presumed to contain an asbestos type other than chrysotile. You have to collect and analyze at least three samples of homogeneous materials. Any positive result for a set of samples affirms you have asbestos contained materials in your workplace – and you must follow proper safety and hazard protocols. The new regimen also clarifies the responsibilities for an asbestos management program. You have to maintain a record showing friable ACM to November 2007 and all ACM (including non-friable) after November 2007. If asbestos is found on site, it is the corporation’s responsibility to notify the owners of the building. Once the work is completed and the asbestos is removed or permanently enclosed (if it is friable fireproofing or insulation), the corporation must have the premises reinspected at least annually. The onus is on contractors to provide enhanced training for those on the job. Workers have to be familiarized with the hazards of asbestos exposure and be trained in the use, cleaning and disposal of protective clothing and respirators. Effective November 1, 2007, all workers and supervisors involved in
Type 3 asbestos work need to successfully complete the Asbestos Abatement Worker or Supervisor Training Program approved by the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. It’s clear that O. Reg 278/05 has really beefed up the safety requirements for the construction industry. Be careful with asbestos. Otherwise you risk serious peril –a lawsuit by affected workers.
Highlights of Ontario Regulation 278/05 – Asbestos On Construction Projects And In Building And Repair Operations • Defining “asbestos-containing material” as having at least 0.5 per cent asbestos by dry weight. • Clarifying the responsibilities for asbestos management programs, including non-friable asbestos in these programs. • Surveys require more bulk sampling. • Reclassifying certain asbestos procedures for Type 1, 2 and 3 operations. • Drywall removal with asbestos containing joint compound is now Type 2 if one square metre or more is removed. • Existing asbestos management plans must be updated by November 1, 2007. • Workers in Type 3 asbestos operations must complete a training program approved by the Ministry of training, Colleges and Universities, as of November 1, 2007. • Significant changes to respiratory type for contaminated ceiling entry and many Type 3 projects. • Air clearance sampling now required for Type 3 operations, except for demolition projects. ■
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
11
The Myth of Cents Per Square Foot (A CAUTIONARY TALE OF TWO COMPARABLE BUILDINGS)
BY JOHN WARREN, CA ADAMS, MASIN & TILLEY LLP
12
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
A
t Annual General Meetings (AGMs) that I attend “cents per square foot� comes up periodically, always in the context that whatever condominium community I am at is paying too much in common element assessments compared to surrounding condominiums as expressed by this magic calculation. It is also clear that the Board should correct this problem by reducing fees without reducing services, a process somewhat akin to waving a magic wand and expecting the problem to disappear – it only happens in the movies. Occasionally these cents per square foot calculations can give rise to substantial discontent and, in the extreme, requisition meetings to remove directors. This is unfortunate because comparisons based on cents per square foot never, never express the financial realities of the condominiums so compared. Using this calculation to compare condominiums is like using a chain saw to sculpt a copy of a famous statue; people may recognize the result but nobody should pay a lot of attention. Now, never is a strong word and I am prepared to agree that somewhere, at some point in time there may be two or more condominiums that can be realistically compared based on this measure, but that rare circumstance, if it exists, only proves that comparing condominiums based on cents per square foot and expecting useful results is a myth. Now, as it happens, I have two condominiums in my portfolio that, by looking at them, you would think are comparable; they are located within sight of one another about the same distance from the same subway stop; they were built by the same developer, are about the same age, offer identical services and amenities, are managed by the same management company, have about the same size grounds to look after; look to be more or less the same size and even look alike architecturally. If any two buildings look to be comparable it would seem to be these two and therein lies a cautionary tale. Before we proceed to the comparison of these buildings, we should discuss the fac-
tors that impact cents per square foot to be able to understand why the calculation is so problematic. In order of importance they are: suite size, number of units, services offered and age of building. Suite size is the most significant factor because, other than heating and air conditioning, most costs do not increase or decrease with increases or decreases in suite size. To illustrate,
Suite size is the most significant factor because, other than heating and air conditioning, most costs do not increase or decrease with increases or decreases in suite size. lets use two mythical buildings of 200 units: building A with an average suite size of 1,500 sq. ft. and building B at 1,000 sq. ft. Concierge services 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days a year in each building will generally employ one person around the clock and will cost each building the same amount, roughly $140,000. For A that calculates to 3.8 cents per square foot, while for building B it is 5.8 cents per square foot; same service, different cost per square foot. This will also be generally true for services like elevator, electrical, mechanical, heating and air-conditioning, cleaning, management and landscaping. So the first rule is that buildings are only comparable if their suite sizes are pretty much the same. The second most important factor is number of units and for much the same reasons as suite size; costs do not increase with each additional unit, they increase in steps. To use another example, the cost of elevator maintenance is much the same as long as there are
three elevators even if there are 10, 12 or 16 units per floor. Cost increases substantially only when it is necessary to have four elevators to service the building. To illustrate the issue however lets go back to our two mythical buildings with concierge service but now they have the same suite size of 1000 sq ft and building A is 15 stories with 150 units while building B is 15 stories with 210 units. Both will contract for the same level of concierge service as the increased number of units in building B typically does not warrant more the one person around the clock and so we can again use a cost of $140,000. For A that calculates to 7.7 cents per square foot, while for B it is 5.6 cents per square foot. Again, same service, different cost per square foot and this will also generally hold true for the other services mentioned under suite size. So the second rule is that buildings are only comparable when the number of suites is similar. Services offered is next and covers such things as whether or not both condominiums have a concierge and for the same amount of time each day; whether they both have services such as pools, whirlpools and saunas which cost a lot to heat and maintain, fitness centers; whether or not cable TV is included in common element assessments and whether suites are individually metered for utilities. Obviously two buildings with different services will have different cents per square foot even if all other factors are comparable. So the third rule is that you have to have virtually identical services to compare buildings. Last is age of the building. You can never compare a brand new building to an older building because new buildings operate under a budget that the developer set and marketing considerations generally make the first year budget low. It can then take the condominium two or three years to increase fees to a level sufficient to pay for the actual costs necessary to operate the building and to properly fund the reserve for major repairs and replacements. It is common that new buildings have to raise their fees 40 to 60 Spring 2007
thecondovoice
13
percent over the next three years, so if cost per square foot was 36 cents in 2005 it is likely to be somewhere between 50 and 60 cents per square foot by 2008. Further, a building now 15 years old has probably had reserve fund studies prepared over the years; has followed them and so has money on hand to pay for major repairs and replacements as they come up. A building that is 35 years old, on the other hand, probably did not fund its reserve adequately in its early years as the impact of an aging building was not so clearly understood in those days and may now be forced to raise fees substantially and even assess owners to cover the required costs of major repairs and replacements. Now the cautionary part, even though the two buildings mentioned at the beginning of this article seem to be quite comparable there are problems if current cents per square foot is the only measure used. Table 1 is a summary of these buildings for their 2005 fiscal period. So, what’s the conclusion? Well I can hear it now, Condo 2 is definitely the better bargain, same amenities and services, bigger suites and all for $5 more a month, mind you another $100,000 is needed to buy there.
Unfortunately for those who bought in 2005, this is no longer true and though the indications were there, they would most probably not be fully considered in their purchase decision; Condo 1 has a surplus while Condo 2 has a deficit; Condo 1’s reserve contributions are $475,000 and forecast to increase only by inflation while Condo 2’s contributions are $300,000 and are forecast to increase by 40% in 2006 and 12% in both 2007 and 2008. The 2006 financial statements disclosed the following:
Even though the two buildings mentioned at the beginning of this article seem to be quite comparable there are problems if current cents per square foot is the only measure used.
• Condo 1 raised CEA 1.6% to $638 per month or 47 cents per sq ft. • Condo 1 assessed $350,000 for building envelope and lobby refurbishment • Condo 2 raised CEA 9.9% to $696 per month or 41 cents per sq ft, most of the increase due to increased reserve contributions. • Condo 2 special assessed $80,000 to recover prior and current deficits If Condo 2 had put all its reserve increases in excess of inflation into 2006, its 2006 fees would be approximately $805 per month or 47 cents per sq ft, the same as Condo 1. So what
TABLE 1 Condo 1
14
thecondovoice
Winter 2006
Condo 2
•
Age
22
•
2005 Surplus (deficit)
20
$50,000
$-30.000
•
Reserve fund contribution
$475,000
$300,000
•
Reserve fund contribution increases forecast in %
inflation
40/12/12
•
Recent sales price
$375,000
$475,000
•
Recent sales per sq ft
$234
$253
•
Number of suites (10% more in condo 2)
•
Average suite in livable square feet (25% more in condo 2)
•
Total assessments (CEA) (11% more in condo 2)
•
Average CEA per suite per month
•
Average cents per sq ft per month
222
245
1,360
1,700
$1,670,000
$1,850,000
$625
$630
46
37
are we to conclude from all this. First, even buildings that look comparable like these two may not be a good match. Second, even if we can properly adjust cents per square foot calculations for the four key factors today, there is no guarantee for the future. We would expect that the Condo 2 with larger suites and more units would have lower cents per square foot and this was the case in 2005 but it did not hold true after that year. Third, special assessments distort cents per square foot calculations as happened when Condo 2 raised its reserve contributions sharply while Condo 1 special assessed to fund reserve expenditures. The inescapable conclusion is that the chances that you can find even two condominiums with similar numbers of suites and suite sizes, which offer identical amenities, are about the same age and which have the same current financial condition and future prospects are, as they say, slim to none. Consequent-ly, as I opined at the start, it is a myth that effective comparisons of condominium communities can be made based solely on cents per square foot calculations. John Warren, CA is a partner with Adams, Masin & Tilley LLP, Chartered Accountants who provide audit and financial services to all sizes and types of condominiums. John would like to express his thanks to Brookfield Residential Services Ltd. who conduct extensive research in this area and who made their data available to him. Without their assistance this article would not have been possible. â–
CONDOMINIUM SECTION Maclaren, Corlett LLP is a full service law firm with offices in Toronto and Ottawa; both having significant condominium sections. The condominium section of the firm’s Toronto office is headed up by Armand Conant, and represents many condominium corporations in Toronto and the GTA. We work closely with our clients to find practical, cost effective solutions to problems. For more information please contact: Armand G.R. Conant 186 St. George Street, Main Floor Toronto, Ontario M5R 2N3 Tel: (416) 361-3094 Fax: (416) 361-6261 Email: aconant@macorlaw.com www.maclarencorlett.com
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
15
Security Issues BY DENISE LASH, B.SC., LL.B., ACCI, FCCI
How much security a condominium has, and how effective it is, will ultimately depend on how much the residents are willing to pay through their monthly common expenses. 16
thecondovoice
Winter 2006
S
afety and security. I think about it all the time. Are my kids safe traveling by themselves on public transit? Are my parents safe at home by themselves? Should I go out at 10:00 at night to the corner store? In condos — if security is effective, it’s rarely noticed by its residents. It is when some event occurs either in the community or within the condominium itself, such as a break-in, assault or damage to property, that causes boards, managers and owners to examine their overall safety and security measures. What is effective security? Ideally, it means there are security measures in place to monitor the main entries to the building, the parking garage or lot, common areas such as the pool or exercise room, and any storage locker areas. Of course, no security system is perfect. How much security a condominium has, and how effective it is, will ultimately depend on how much the residents are willing to pay through their monthly common expenses. The condo board of directors will often be called upon to make some difficult, and unpopular, choices as to what to secure and how. Just recently I was dealing with a condominium corporation which had to raise its common expenses after the first year by 40% to cover the costs of a concierge. Security goes hand in hand with costs. One of the important functions of a board is to evaluate the security that it has in place. Boards should be aware of the common types of security systems and their limitations. Security cameras are effective for monitoring multiple places and large areas efficiently, 24 hours a day. The mere presence of security cameras is generally thought to act as a deterrent. It is important to appreciate however that unless the video feed from security cameras is being monitored “live” by security personnel — an expensive proposition — the cameras can do little to detect and prevent criminal acts, such as assault, theft or vandalism, from occurring in the first place. Rather, in
most cases, the feed from security cameras is recorded and is only reviewed after the fact in the event of an incident. This may only be helpful in identifying the culprit and possibly preventing future incidents. In contrast, security guards offer the advantage of “real time” detection and prevention but are limited in the scope of their coverage. Typically, a security guard walks a circuit of a condo property periodically, varying the route and timing of the rounds to avoid establishing an easily detectable pattern. It is difficult for a single security guard to create a significant security presence given the size of a typical condo property: a high rise tower with attached multi-level parking garage. If the security guard also monitors the front desk, the main entrance will be left unattended while the security guard makes the rounds. Multiple security guards improve the coverage but impacts on the costs- more common expenses! What other security measures can
a condo put in place? Proximity or “swipe” cards can be an effective means of controlling access to common areas. The movement of card holders can also be tracked and cards that are lost or stolen can be easily deactivated. Closed circuit technology is also increasingly available in units to permit residents to monitor those seeking entrance to the building on their television or computer screens. Of course, any security system is only as effective as the people who use it. Next time you enter your building or onto the property, think about keeping an eye out for suspicious activity and be more vigilant in preventing the entry of potential vandals and thieves. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, we tend to be reluctant to question people who follow us through a secured entrance to a building or parking garage for fear of being “rude”. In that single act, a resident can defeat all of the costly security measures that a condominium has put in place. ■
thecondovoice
Invitation for Submissions As editor of TheCondoVoice Magazine I would like to thank all of our contributors to our magazine and of course to all the advertisers which help us all to get our message to our CCI-Toronto members. We are very proud of TheCondoVoice and in fact it received the Pensmith Smith Newsletter of the Year Award for 2006. It is my pleasure to extend an invitation to all members of CCI to submit their proposal to us for content to be inserted in our summer and fall issues. If you wish to submit your articles for all issues we will consider a series of articles provided that we know what you will be submitting in advance. We welcome your ideas for all the many interesting issues that face condominium boards and their communities. We are looking for articles that are approximately 1500 words which provide some great insight to our readers. Management issues, building issues, legal topics, engineering information and community issues are only a few examples of what we are looking for. Please submit your proposal to the CCI office, attention Lynn Morrovat. Mario Deo CondoVoice Editor
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
17
Fire Prevention: Inhibiting the Outbreak BY FRED P. BAUMGARTNER & RAY GOULET
Fire departments throughout Canada are becoming more and more advanced with state of the art equipment to combat fires. In addition, they are providing their fire fighters with superior training to suppress fires and assist with the evacuation of the occupants. When fire emergencies arise, we come to know these great men and women who have arrived at the workplace and home to help us.
18
thecondovoice
Winter 2006
will inhibit an outbreak of fire in the first place and thus prevents it. ith countless fire Implementing fire prevention, fighter acknowledgealone, without considering many ments for saving other factors, will not prove either lives each and every day in our suitable or sufficient to the task of country, the Fire Chiefs still remain emergency response in many of the mystified as to why more attention circumstances involving building isn’t paid to fire prevention by their fires as these are mostly directed to citizens. This has lead to fire departevents before the fire emergency ments becoming more aggressive actually starts or for the first few with their fire safety campaigns and minutes afterwards. Therefore, fire promoting such events as “fire precodes include the provision of early vention week� within their commudetection devices and alerting sysnities. Fire departments and fireMost fires result from human error: tems. Fire-specific legislation also fighters around the country spend heating appliances like wood stoves and provides the engineered means, time in their communities working those which are incorporated into with individuals in schools, compafurnaces malfunction, lit cigarettes or the fabric of a structure or subnies and hosting various special structure, to limit fire growth and fund raiser events to bring the mesmatches are dropped, and cooking spread, control smoke and, in some sage of fire safety to the forefront. materials are left unattended on a stove. cases, provide automatic or semiThis message has always been how automatic means of fire control in to increase the potential for survival on a stove. These are all examples of the form of engineered fire suppression in the event that a fire strikes at home or careless acts that could be prevented. or sprinkler systems. in the workplace. Our workplaces are also filled with Once a fire emergency is underAlthough the nation celebrates fire many potential sources of fire that may way, provincial fire codes do contain prevention during one lone week in cost someone their life if they are not requirements to ensure a safe means of October, promoting fire safety and preaware of the immediate fire hazards. evacuation or the escape of building vention must be front and centre in the Recent figures still indicate that the occupants by requiring the maintenance community at large fifty-two weeks of majority of home and workplace fires of clear paths of escape, sufficient numthe year. Most fires result from human could have been prevented. Simply put, ber of suitable-protected exit ways, error: heating appliances like wood fuel, ignition and a careless act are the emergency lighting, and signage. If a stoves and furnaces malfunction, lit cigkey components to causing a fire. rapidly-spreading fire occurs, all of the arettes or matches are dropped, and Removing one of these three variables occupants must be able to get out of the cooking materials are left unattended
W
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
19
building without injury and without being trapped by the fire. Occupants must know the locations of all of the emergency exits. Alternate paths to safety are to be clearly marked, and not unobstructed or locked. If an emergency exit must be locked from the exterior for security reasons, it must be equipped with a “panic hardware” type latch so that it can be opened from the inside without having to unlock it first. Fire doors, which are magnetically locked, are to be released upon activation of the fire alarm system and/or fire pull station located by the exit door. If there are doors that could be mistaken for an exit door but don’t lead to an exit, signage is to be posted on the door stating “not an exit”. Records have indicated that in a fire emergency, occupants may make their way to stairwells leading to the roof only finding the doors to be locked, where they panicked and became trapped. If there are any physicallyimpaired occupants including those with hearing or vision limitations,
20
thecondovoice
Winter 2006
area(s) must be selected in advance away from the building so as to avoid hampering access by fire fighters. Panic of occupants in the early stages of a fire evacuation can contribute to high casualty losses. Therefore, the fire code legislation outlines the various occupancies which are required by law to have a validated Fire Safety Plan (FSP). An FSP is a customized manual that outlines life safewheelchair bound, etc., special procedures are required to be in place to alert and assist with their evacuation of the building. A fire alarm system, public address system, or other means of alerting occupants to evacuate the building must be in full working condition 24-7. When the fire alarm sounds or a fire or other emergency is otherwise announced, all occupants should immediately exit the building by proceeding to the nearest exit in an orderly fashion. If the nearest exit is blocked by fire or smoke, occupants should proceed to an alternate exit. A designated meeting
ty procedures, as well as the availability and description of fire protection equipment in a building. Most importantly, it is an internal map to guide fire fighters in the event that a fire emer-
gency arises. FSPs are prepared by specialized consulting firms which, once drafted, must be submitted to the Fire Department. A Fire Official will review the building FSP for full compliance according to Section 2.8 of the National Fire Code. The Fire Department stamp is applied along with the date of acceptance. The FSP provides an illustrated floor plan layout of a building, including all exits, stairwells and the location of fire and life safety equipment. This floor plan should be posted prominently on each floor for all the occupants to see. The FSP also describes occupant evacuation procedures and the fire drill schedules. It lists emergency contact telephone numbers, specifies procedures for the floor warden teams and identifies occupants with special needs. Requirements for daily, weekly, monthly and yearly inspections and testing of the fire and life safety equipment in the building are explained. The main objective of an FSP is to increase fire safety awareness for all the occupants of a building, and to minimize the occurrence of situations that may be life-threatening. The planning process involves the identification of potentially hazardous situations, the assessment of risks and the implementation of control measures to eliminate or reduce the risk of injury or harm that may occur during a fire evacuation. Training in set fire evacuation procedures and the establishment of clear escape routes are the key measures that must be applied to reduce potential loss of life and the risk of injury. All occupants of a building, not just the personnel who coordinate the emergency fire evacuations, must be familiar with these procedures. Exercising the FSP involves training, practice and conducting full evacuations to ensure that all occupants participate in this critical awareness education.
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
Source: Fred P. Baumgartner and Ray Goulet are writers for Standard Strategies™ on behald of Firepoint Inc., specialists in the development of approved fire safety plans and building emergency evacuation procedures. For further information, call 905-8749400, email info@firepoint.cc or visit www.firepoint.cc. ■ Spring 2007
thecondovoice
21
Building Healthy and Happy Relationships Between Management, Directors and Residents BY STEVEN CHRISTODOULOU, R.C.M. ICC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD.
I
n this day and age of living in a fast-paced society in which electronic communications are heavily relied upon, conversations and relationships between parties are becoming increasingly more impersonal and less expressive. Emails, faxes, voicemails and such are steadfastly replacing personal interactions and good old face-to-face dialogues. In property management, a significant part of what we do revolves around communicating. The effectiveness in the way we communicate can make the difference between a happy, healthy relationship with our directors, staff, service providers etc., and communal discontent. As in our personal lives, the basis for a successful and healthy relationship begins with good communication. Yes, electronic communications are fast and efficient and certainly get the job done. In fact, my blackberry and I are “joined at the hip�. But these once-futuristic-now-realistic means of communication are also more impersonal and distancing. To attain success in communicating, it is important to 22
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
maintain the personal and human element of relationships.
The Residents One of the main things that residents often express is the need for clear, concise and frequent communication from the management office to the residents. Residents are happy to receive regular correspondence, notices and newsletters which outline current matters pertaining to their building and their community. Some of our condominiums broadcast a newsletter from the management office through their cable TV provider. Homeowners and residents alike are becoming increasingly educated and involved in their condominium living and as such wish to be kept apprised of the general day to day matters and operation of their homes. Also, regular communication with the residents promotes a sense of cooperation and transparency between the elected Board, Management and the Owners. We as managers need to understand that our residents’ homes are their single most valuable investment and
their right to be informed needs to be respected. The installation of a suggestion box in some of our condominiums has proven to be an effective tool in engaging the homeowners ideas and suggestions for improvements and changes. Although rarely used, it is again another tool for promoting a sense of security in knowing that problems and concerns will be heard. Managers oftentimes tend to focus more directly on the relationship between the manager and the director. When this happens, the relationship between the manager and the residents can sometimes fall by the wayside. Although impossible to please all, residents will undoubtedly be happy provided that they receive communication, have the freedom and avenues to express their issues, and if the followup to such issues is attended to in a timely manner. Any resident conflicts or discord should be resolved calmly, amicably and reasonably. Listening to the resident, advising them and educating them will help in those instances where their requests cannot be accommodated.
The cumulative effects of increased communication and opportunities for personal interaction, as well as regular owners’ meetings will undoubtedly make for healthier and happier relationships with the residents of your corporation.
Residents also need the opportunity to get together with their fellow residents at organized social events coordinated by management in conjunction with the Board of Directors. Such events can be instrumental in developing stronger relationships between the residents, the Board and management, as well as building a stronger sense of community. Over the years, I have had many opportunities to see much success with community gatherings such as summer barbecues and wine and cheese evenings. These types of social events bring management, staff, directors and residents together – no ties – no rules – no business. A resident barbecue can be planned very easily and can be relatively inexpensive to hold with some cooperation from management, the board and residents. The benefits of such an event definitely outweigh the costs. The cumulative effects of increased communication and opportunities for personal interaction, as well as regular owners’ meetings will undoubtedly make for healthier and happier relationships with the residents of your corporation.
The Directors Communication with the members of the Board is multi-dimensional consid-
ering that the elected members of the board of directors are representatives of the homeowners. While each member of the Board is also a resident, they are charged with the significant responsibility of overseeing the affairs of the corporation. Decisions, communications and information are filtered down from the directors to management, building staff, residents and trades. While the level and intensity of their actual involvement varies from Board to Board, communication with the members of the Board remains paramount to the success of the relationship between the management and the corporation. It is imperative to the relationship that the manager be readily available to the directors. Directors defer to the manager for advice and direction which gives them a sense of security and confidence in that their capable manager is helping them to protect their investment. A manager must be proactive in keeping the Board apprised of current issues and quickly responding to the matters at hand. In addition, managers can facilitate the ease and effectiveness of communication by having an open-
door policy, returning telephone calls and email responses promptly, and dealing with correspondence in a timely manner. Above all, flexibility, honesty and integrity helps to extend these relationships to long term ones. In my personal experience, I have found that the continual education of Directors goes a long way in helping build the relationship between the Board, Management and residents, into a cohesive and content partnership. Naturally, we promote education for our directors through various courses and seminars offered by CCI and ACMO. We further encourage education by extending invitations to our Board members to attend any relevant internal monthly seminars and training our company provides to its staff. We have found that our Board members very much appreciate being included in our meetings to hear guest speakers present information on current issues affecting the condominium community. Directors are then invited to pose questions as well as participate in the ensuing forum. We have received positive feedback from our Directors regarding their attendance at these seminars and information sessions and they have deemed them both beneficial and educational. Aside from the educational continued on page 25
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
23
24
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
purpose, this process provides our directors an opportunity to witness our efforts to continually educate our staff which in turn benefits the buildings we manage on behalf of our directors and residents. Company social events are a great way to improve, solidify and nurture relationships with directors. For example, we host an annual company Christmas party at a restaurant and invite all our clients to attend. Including them in this event gives them a sense of belonging – like they are part of the family…no business, just good food and great company.
The Managers and Staff Healthy relationships come full circle with the managers and other staff who are on the front lines of the condominiums we manage. As we all well know, condominium management can be very stressful at times. There are instances in which a manager or other staff mem-
Providing ongoing support, direction, education and training to our property managers and other building staff is paramount and will greatly aid in ensuring their enjoyment and confidence in their job. ber has been unable to calm or satisfy an unreasonable resident. The involvement of senior management in these situations will not only help to quell the situation, but will instill a sense of security and confidence in the manager or staff member. Providing ongoing support, direction, education and training to our property managers and other building staff is paramount and will greatly aid in ensuring their enjoyment and confidence in their job. They will
in turn have the tools they need to perform at an optimal level in order to help secure the success of the relationships between Management, directors and residents.
Keeping Relationships Healthy Methods of communication are changing and will continue to change, but that does not mean that we should lose sight of personal contact. Communicating more often on a personal level will greatly improve and strengthen the essence of the relationships between management, directors and residents. I do believe that people need a sense of belonging – to be part of the family or community. As such, creating a positive environment in which directors, residents and management can communicate more effectively and increase personal interaction will help to encourage and sustain long term successful and healthy relationships. An environment where everyone benefits. ■
ICC Property Management Ltd. COMPLETE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES
ICC Property Management Ltd.
550 Alden Road Suite 201 Markham, ON L3R 6A8 Tel: (905) 940-1234 Fax: (905) 940-3881
❖ Industrial ❖ Commercial ❖ Condominiums ❖ Cooperatives ❖ Townhouses ❖ Condominium Financial Services ❖ New Condominium Development Consultants ❖ Computerized Maintenance Management System
PROTECT YOUR INVESTMENT MEMBER
24 Hour Emergency Line (416) 346-0323
Visit our Web site at www.iccpropertymanagement.com Spring 2007
thecondovoice
25
The Noises…and Smells of Condo Living BY BRIAN HORLICK, B.COMM., B.C.L., LL.B., ACCI HORLICK LEVITT BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS
A
s a lawyer specializing in condominium law, two of the more frequent problems which condominium corporations and unit owners must deal with are issues of noise and odours. These matters are dealt with under the provisions of the Condominium Act and the general law of nuisance.
The Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) Issues of noise and odours are dealt with in the Act as well as the corporation’s declaration, by-laws and rules. Under the Act, section 7(4) provides that the declaration may contain conditions or restrictions with respect to the occupation and use of the units or common elements. Section 17(3) goes on to say that the corporation has a duty to ensure that the owners, amongst others, comply with the Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules. Under section 56 of the Act, the board may make by-laws to govern the use and management of the assets of the corporation. Pursuant to section 58 of the Act, the board may make rules with respect to the use of the common elements and units to prevent unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the common elements, the units or the assets of the corporation. Section 134 of the Act allows an owner or a condominium corporation to ask the court for an order enforcing compliance with any provisions of the Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules. However, the Act provides that when there is a disagreement between the corporation and the owner regarding the declaration, the by-laws or the rules, such a compliance order is only available if the mediation and arbitration has been attempted and has failed. This, of course, does not apply to breaches of the Act, which allows for an immediate application under section 134. It is important to note that other court applications may also proceed without the necessity of mediation and arbitration. Under section 135 of the Act, a court can make any order the judge deems proper if the court determines that the conduct of the owner or corporation is, or threatens to be, oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to the applicant or unfairly disregards the interests of the applicant.
26
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
The Law of Nuisance According to the legal texts on the subject, a person may be said to have committed the tort or wrongful act of nuisance when he is held to be responsible for an act indirectly causing physical injury to land or substantially interfering with the use or enjoyment of land or an interest in land, where in the light of all surrounding circumstances, this injury or interference is held to be unreasonable. However, not every nuisance is legally actionable. In the case of Schenck v. The Queen, the court held that “not every invasion of a person’s interest in the use and enjoyment of land is actionable. The principle of give and take, live and let live is fundamental to the adjustment of claims in the law of nuisance”. The issue of reasonableness was discussed in Royal Anne Hotel Co. Ltd. v. Ashcroft by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The court stated that “it is certainly not every smell, whiff of smoke, sound of machinery or music that will entitle the indignant plaintiff to recover. It is impossible to lay down precise and detailed standards but the invasion must be substantial and serious and of such a nature that it is clear, according to the accepted concepts of the day, that it should be an actionable wrong.”
The Case Law
Bella to immediately cease creating or permitting the creation of noise, and directed her to forthwith cause carpet to be installed to the satisfaction of the board. The court went on to say that “in order to protect the interests of a large number of people living in close proximity, the rules must be enforced even though such enforcement may result in depriving condominium owners of certain freedoms that normally accompany ownership.”
Loud Music In the case of YCC 166 v Nunez, the condominium corporation brought an application in the Ontario Court of Justice for an order requiring the Nunez family to observe, adhere and follow the rules, by-laws and declaration of the corporation, and not to create or permit the creation of any noise or nuisance. The evidence was to the effect that Mr. Nunez’s young son Roberto enjoyed listening to loud stereo music while he
The Perfect Focal Point for Any Room Requires no installation or venting, making them ideal for condos. Just plug it in for instant ambiance, redecorate without the renovations. Operates for pennies per day. Use with or without heat for year round enjoyment. With the largest selection in the city, we have the perfect solution for every space and every budget.
Hardwood Floors In the case of YRCC 622 v Pisman, the condominium corporation brought an application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for an order to require Bella Pisman not to make noise in her unit. The application was brought on behalf of another owner who lived directly below her unit. The corporation’s rules required almost all floors in the units to be carpeted. Bella removed her carpet and installed hardwood flooring, without obtaining permission from the corporation. After a review of the evidence, the judge ordered Bella to comply with the Act, the declaration and the rules. The judge also ordered Spring 2007
thecondovoice
27
28
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
vigorously played his drum kit late at night. The judge found for the corporation and made an order that the Nunez family be required to comply with the rules regarding unreasonable noise. Not So Loud Music In the case of Chiang v Yang, the unit owners lived side by side in a condominium. Chiang sued Yang for damages due to noise coming from Yang’s residence. Yang counterclaimed against Chiang for harassment. Chiang claimed that noise caused by Yang’s daughter while she practiced her piano daily deprived him of the use and enjoyment of part of his residence and caused him mental anguish and loss of sleep. The British Columbia Provincial Court held that Chiang failed to establish that there was an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of his residence. There was no evi-
dence that the noise emanating from Yang’s unit was substantial or unreasonable. In fact, Chiang’s constant complaints to the police department and health board constituted a nuisance. Chiang’s action was dismissed. Jacuzzi - installed on common element In the case of Bond v Strata Plan VR 2538, Janine Bond brought an application for an injunction to compel the
condominium corporation to enforce the Condominium Act as well as its by-laws relating to the creation of noise and to restrain the corporation from operating the whirlpool. Janine owned a unit which was located over the exercise room and the jacuzzi. She complained of the noise from the jacuzzi equipment, the voice levels associated with its use, and the smell of chlorine that emanated from it. After hearing the evidence, the British Columbia Supreme Court ordered the condominium corporation be restrained from operating its jacuzzi. The judge found that the noise created by the jacuzzi together with the voices of the people in the jacuzzi exceeded maximum noise levels, and that there was an offensive odour of chlorine present. Specifically, the judge pointed out that one of the condominium’s common elements could not be operated in a way that unreasonably
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
29
interfered with the enjoyment of one owner’s separate property. The interference in this case exceeded what an owner was required to accept. Jacuzzi – installed in unit In the case of Strata Plan NW 87 v Karamanian, the condominium corporation brought an application for an injunction against Gabe Karamanian, a unit owner who had installed an air conditioner and a jacuzzi in his unit in breach of the condominium rules. The evidence showed that Gabe operated his air conditioner and jacuzzi at various times of the day and night. This caused noise and vibration which his elderly neighbors, located immediately below his unit, claimed was interfering with their right to comfortable living. The British Columbia Supreme Court granted an order permitting Gabe to use his air conditioner and jacuzzi only at specific times and periods and to abstain from further breaches of the rules.
The question in every case in not whether the individual plaintiff suffers what he regards as substantial discomfort or inconvenience, but whether the reasonable man who resides in that locality would take the same view of the matter.” Cigar Smoke In Raith v. Coles, John and Gloria Raith brought an application for an injunction restraining George and Lydia Coles who lived in the unit below theirs from emitting and discharging noxious sub-
Jonathan Fine Stephen Goodbaum Michael Pascu Maria Dimakas
stances, specifically cigar smoke and odour from their premises. The Raith’s claimed that as a result of the smoke, they were suffering sore throats, anxiety, heartburn and emotional strain. The judge quoted the legal text of Salmond on Torts as follows: “The standard of comfortable living which is thus to be taken as the test of a nuisance is not a single universal standard for all times and places, but a variable standard differing in different localities. The question in every case is not whether the individual plaintiff suffers what he regards as substantial discomfort or inconvenience, but whether the reasonable man who resides in that locality would take the same view of the matter.” The judge directing his mind to the specific facts of this case went on to say that “while the individual must be expected to put up with some inconvenience in today’s world, there comes a point where the perpetrator of a problem must curtail his actions when they become demonstrably harmful to others.
Mario Deo Joseph Ryan Marco Graziani
www.finedeo.com • (905) 760-1800 • 1-888-FINEDEO
30
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
In granting the injunction, the judge stated that “Just as no person should be subjected to the unrestricted cacophony of stereo music from his neighbour, neither should he be subjected to the continuing smell of cigar smoke if that smell is unreasonably disseminated into other people’s worlds.” Condominium living, by its very nature, involves groups of people living together in close proximity to one another. By necessity, boards of directors would be well advised to become familiar with the law of nuisance. In the words of Florida Associate Justice Driver in Sterling Village Condominium Inc. v. Breitenbach, “Every man may justly consider his home his castle and himself as the king thereof; nonetheless his sovereign fiat to use his property as he pleases must yield, at least in degree, where ownership is in common or cooperation with others. The benefits of condominium living and ownership demand no less.” ■
• 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
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
31
OWNERS CAN APPEAL COMMON AMENITY UNIT TAXES
Avoiding Double Taxation for Common Amenity Units BY J. ROBERT GARDINER, B.A., LL.B., ACCI, FCCI
CCI-Toronto and Area provided assistance in an effort to establish an industry-wide precedent to avoid double taxation where both a condominium corporation’s Guest Unit asset and each residential dwelling unit in a high rise building were fully assessed for municipal taxation. An Endorsement issued by the Superior Court of Justice – Ontario on January 2, 2007, rendered a decision pertaining to the condominium’s claim that individual residential units and the Guest Unit were subject to double taxation when they were assessed for taxation by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) and taxed by the City of Toronto. The Condominium argued that it was both unfair and inappropriate to tax unit owners twice for the same Guest Unit, firstly when the owners paid their proportionate share of common expenses applicable to full assessment and taxation of the Guest Unit registered in the name of the condominium corporation as agent for each of the owners, and secondly as part of the full “current value” assessment against their individual residential units whose value was enhanced by owners’ shares of the Guest Unit amenity. It was argued that 32
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
the Guest Unit is just one example of several different types of “common amenity units” whose ownership, benefit and expenses are shared by each of the unit owners in accordance with their common interests.
It was argued that the Guest Unit is just one example of several different types of “common amenity units” whose ownership, benefit and expenses are shared by each of the unit owners in accordance with their common interests. In this case, the unit owners paid common expenses to acquire the Guest Unit from the declarant and paid the full municipal realty taxes, as well as all other expenses relating to the Guest Unit as required by the corporation’s declaration and s. 84 of the Act. The benefit of the Guest Unit enhanced the
current value of each of the owners’ units. Six units listed for sale during the year of the appeal each referred to the Guest Unit as a beneficial amenity in the sales listing for their units. Each of the Guest Units and the residential units were assessed at full current value by MPAC, without any deduction for each individual residential unit’s common interest proportionate share applicable to the Guest Unit. As a result, each of the individual residential unit owners were fully assessed and taxed on both their proportionate share of the Guest Unit and upon the enhanced current value of their individual units. The judge focused the first half of the Endorsement to refute a secondary argument that the Guest Unit was analogous to a common element of the Condominium. While some precedent cases have allowed such common amenity units to be treated as common elements in some unique circumstances, the judge’s unwillingness to stretch that argument to suit these circumstances cannot be challenged. However, it is the writer’s view that the judge erred when he stated: “Based on the interpretation of the
Condominium Act set out above, the Respondent [MPAC] must assess the market value of the other units without regard to the value attributable to a pro rata share of the ownership of the Guest Unit. Because the “appurtenant common interest” of a unit is limited to its interest in the common elements under the Condominium Act, the parcel of land for assessment purposes in respect of any unit in the condominium excludes any interest in the Guest Unit. Accordingly, the unit owners can address any double taxation by initiating a complaint under the Assessment Act based on the market value of their units. Such a complaint is the proper procedure for addressing whether the market value of the other units for assessment purposes includes the value of property that is not part of the “appurtenant common interest” of these units, being the unit owner’s interest in the Guest Unit. As a related matter, I agree with the Respondent that any such complaint is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Assessment Review Board.”
ship of the Guest Unit.”. However, the judge seems to have completely overlooked his own analysis that owners share pro rata in the ownership of the Guest Unit in later paragraphs of the Endorsement when addressing the main double taxation argument. A recent GST case precedent confirms that a condominium corporation is the agent of its unit owners (which confirms the concept that even though a condominium corporation is the legal registered owner of an asset such as the Guest Unit, it holds that asset as an agent for its unit owners, who are the beneficial owners of the asset). Nonetheless, it appears that the above excerpted paragraph from the Endorsement provides a rather muddy double taxation victory to unit owners. The writer also disagrees with the judge’s analysis of the value of each individual unit owner’s pro rata share of the Guest Unit:
“In addition, I think that there is a conceptual flaw in the position of the unit owners. It is agreed that there is no possibility of the Guest Unit being sold because of the 90% approval requirement under the bylaws of the condominium. There is therefore no realistic possibility of a purchaser of a unit realizing his or her pro rata share of the market value of the Guest Unit. In such circumstances, it is highly unlikely that the purchase price of a unit will include any amount reflecting the acquisition of a pro rata share of the market value of the Guest Unit. If the purchase price reflects any amount in respect of the Guest Unit, conceptually it will be the value of the right to put up guests in the Guest Unit on a short-term basis for a nominal fee. If there is any value to such a right, however, it is certainly substantially less than a pro
[underlining by writer for emphasis]
The writer disagrees with the judge’s analysis that the “appurtenant common interest” of a unit is limited to its interest in the common elements. Section 1 (1) of the Act is not limited when it states: “ ‘common interest’ means the interest in the common elements appurtenant to a unit.” The writer believes that s. 18 (2) of the Act confers upon unit owners an additional common interest right in the condominium corporation’s assets, because it states: “The owners share the assets of the corporation in the same proportions as the proportions of their common interests in accordance with this Act, the declaration and the by-laws.” It appears ironic that the judge had repeated the above wording of s. 18 (2) in an earlier paragraph of his Endorsement and confirmed at that point: “Therefore, the owners of the other units share pro rata in the owner-
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
33
PLAN NOW PAY L E S S L AT E R Call CDW today for an accurate and professional
PERFORMANCE AUDIT and RESERVE FUND STUDY
Carson Dunlop Weldon & Associates Ltd. Tel 416-964-3246 Toll Free 1-866-964-3246 Toronto
Vancouver
www.CDWengineering.com
34
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
rata share of the market value of the Guest Unit. On this basis, the issue of double taxation pertains to a smaller amount than is envisaged by the unit owners.” The writer has identified six misconceptions contained in the above paragraph, which are analyzed in more detail in the writer’s Appeal Memo. It would not be necessary to alter the declaration to sell a common amenity unit at many condominium corporations, nor is approval by 90% of the owners required. In a later paragraph of the Endorsement, the judge claims that the Guest Unit is a marketable unit (which contradicts his above analysis that there is no possibility of the Guest Unit being sold). In the writer’s opinion, the judge’s statement above is contrary to the principles of current value assessment, which include the valuation of enhancements and amenities to a property, as reflected in current market values of the residential units. There would be no reason for a common amenity unit to exist, unless its full value was reflected in the value of all other units of the Condominium. It is the writer’s view that the judge’s comments that the purchase price of owners’ units should only reflect “the value of the right to put up guests in the Guest Unit on a short term basis for a nominal fee” was a mistak-
It is the writer’s belief that the owners of all units each own the full fair market value of the Guest Unit and that it would be illegal to accord to the owners any ownership share different than their proportionate common interest share as required by s. 18 (2) of the Act. en analysis. It is the writer’s belief that the owners of all units each own the full fair market value of the Guest Unit and that it would be illegal to accord to the owners any ownership share different than their proportionate common interest share as required by s. 18 (2) of the Act. Moreover, standard appraisal principles should be applicable to the value of such a common amenity unit asset, rather than by applying a secondary concept such as “the value of a right”. On the other hand, if the judge’s reasoning is correct, then MPAC should assess the current value of a common amenity unit such as a Guest Unit, as
being no greater than the total of all unit owners’ rights to the benefits of any such common amenity unit (such as the right to put up their guests in the Guest Unit on a short term basis for a nominal fee). The judge believes that the value of such a right is substantially less than a pro rata share of the market value of the Guest Unit. Presumably, condominium corporations will at least want to insist that the “current value” for assessment purposes of their various types of common amenity units should be substantially reduced. Individual unit owners and their condominium corporations can consider insisting that either MPAC should reduce the assessment of their dwelling units, parking units and locker units based upon their shares of any common amenity units of the condominium (i.e., a recreational unit, gatehouse unit, guest unit, underground garage, utility room unit, etc.). Alternatively, it would be preferable for MPAC and the Assessment Review Board to simply adopt the judge’s logic that a common amenity unit’s current value is only worth the value of the unit owner’s rights to the benefits derived from it and therefore, the value of any such common amenity unit should be reduced by MPAC for assessment purposes to a substantially lesser amount than its market value (especially since common amenity units typically have a minimal
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
35
market value, far below their usual assessment by MPAC). Unfortunately, the condominium corporation decided not to appeal. The case results in a checkered victory for individual unit owners which confirms their individual rights to appeal the current value of their individual units to the Assessment Review Board on the basis of double taxation when their condominium corporations own various types of common amenity unit assets, in cases where MPAC has failed to reduce
the current value of their individual units by an amount attributable to each unit owner’s share of any such common amenity assets. In any event, other condominiums without declaration provisions which restrict the sale of such common amenity units are not bound by the “value of the right” concept which arose in the special circumstances of this case, but can forcefully argue that the governing concept is contained in s. 18 (2) of the Act. In any event, MPAC and the Assessment
Review Board now have judicial direction that the value of a common amenity unit such as a Guest Unit should be assessed at a substantially lower value than its market value and it should only be assessed at the value of the rights of all of its unit owners to receive the benefits of the common amenity unit. Condominium corporations are now empowered by s. 56 (1) (f) and (4) of the Act to enact by-law provisions authorizing the board of directors to make a complaint under s. 40 of the Assessment Act on behalf of unit owners (equivalent to a statutory type of class action). Many condominium corporations have now upgraded their General By-laws to make numerous improvements, including a tax assessment complaint provision which allows a board of directors to appeal assessment of all of the owners’ units. The condominium corporation is not liable for an alteration in the assessment of any unit or for any other matter relating to the complaint, except for the costs of the complaint. Individual unit owners can simply give written notice to the condominium if they wish to avoid having their units reassessed. In reality, it is highly unlikely that an assessment appeal will result in an increase in assessment. A condominium corporation can afford to hire a qualified assessment appraiser as an expert witness to make the appropriate arguments before the Assessment Review Board. This is a concise summary of a more detailed and complex Appeal Memo which analyzes the Condominium’s rights to appeal the Decision. Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP will be pleased to provide a copy of the Appeal Memo upon request. J. Robert Gardiner, B.A., LL.B., ACCI, FCCI is senior partner in the law firm of Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP, a firm practicing condominium law in Toronto. Bob is a past President of CCI-Toronto, former Director and past Chair of its Education Committee. He is currently a member of the Legislative Committee. Amongst his 10 books and 225 published legal articles are his condominium texts, The Condominium Act, 1998 – A Practical Guide (Canada Law Book) and Beyond the Condominium Act (ACMO). ■
36
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
Can You Save a Life? BY JOHN COLLIE, PRESIDENT RESCUE 7 INC.
A study conducted by Sunnybrook Hospital determined that it takes 8.1 minutes on average for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to arrive on a scene when dispatched. The Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada states that a person in cardiac arrest has a 10% less chance of survival for every minute they are not defibrillated. If a person is defibrillated in the first four minutes of cardiac arrest, they have over a 50% chance of survival!
AEDs (Automated External Defibrillators) are becoming as common as first aid kits in many companies and public areas including recreational centres, hockey rinks and airports. They have been placed on walls in alarmed cabinets convenient for people to pull out and use in emergencies. AEDs have become very affordable and easy to use for lay rescuers. Average price of an AED is under $2,000 and can be purchased at any Shoppers Home Health Care store in Canada. The wonderful news about AEDs is that you cannot harm a person when using one. If a person collapses, is not responding and not breathing, the rescuer should call 911 and proceed to get the AED. Once the AED is turned on, it will instruct the rescuer how to proceed with voice prompts. Once the electrodes (pads) have been placed on the person according to the instructions, the AED will then determine if the person needs a shock. The AED will only shock in ventricular fibrillated mode. If a person is in normal sinus rhythm, the AED will determine that no shock is required. Therefore, it is very user friendly. If a shock is determined, the AED will guide the user to stand clear and proceed to shock. The AED stops the heart momentarily and hopes the Sino atrial node will pick up normal rhythm again. If so, the person has just been saved! This wonderful device has saved many lives including 6 at Ontario Power Generation where over 80 units have been deployed at locations around
Ontario and over 1,000 employees have been trained. It is highly recommended that people receive a 3-4 hour course in CPR and AED so they feel very comfortable in the operation and maintenance of the unit. The only maintenance required is to switch the battery and pads on an average every 3.5 years or after use. The Ontario Hockey League Junior A teams are required to have the AED on every bench of the home team before the game can commence. This action was a result of the Juri Fischer incident. Juri played for the Detroit Red Wings last year and convulsed and arrested upon returning to the bench after a shift. The team doctor immediately applied the defibrillator and shocked Juri back to normal sinus rhythm. The Heart & Stroke Foundation statistics show cardiac arrests happen in the home setting over 75% of the time. With an 8.1 minute response time for EMS to arrive, the AED is well worth the investment. Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone, anywhere and at anytime. It is best to be prepared. Your life could count on it!
John Collie was with Toronto Fire Services for 20 years and is the President of Rescue 7 Inc. – www.rescue7.net . Rescue 7 provides first aid, health & safety training and supplies including the defibrillator on a national level. â–
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
37
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
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
38
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
Member News
CCI-National General Forum Takes Off! Approximately one year ago, the CCI National Board introduced a new service to our membership. The CCI “General Forum” was added to the National website for the purposes of facilitating discussion and, to some degree, debate over common concerns by our membership. Initially, only a few individuals utilized the forum, but now there are hundreds of conversation streams taking place, with more being added every day. Users of the forum often pose questions, or are looking for advice relating to common issues such as how to find a good property manager, deal with a difficult individual living in the condominium community, rejuvenate
an apathetic condominium community, deal with unresponsive Boards of Directors, record keeping and the hot topic in Ontario these days, Smart Meters. The general forum is easy to
access and fun to use. We will be making changes to it shortly to add sign-in boxes to indicate which province and/or chapter the user lives in and whether they are a member of CCI or not. To gain access to the general forum, simply go to CCI National’s website at www.cci.ca and look for the word ‘forum’ and click. Once you are in the forum, you can either enter anonymously, or use your own name, post your question, or join in a conversation making your own opinions known. Join the forum now, we look forward to talking with you. ■
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
39
Check out the new “Members Only” section on the CCI Toronto Website!
www.ccitoronto.org DONNA SWANSON ACCI, FRI
Real Estate Brokerage
For your Real Estate Needs call: 416-515-2121 • Real Estate Broker - specializing in Condominium Sales since 1982 • Current condominium owner, Past Director & President of Condominium Corporation • ACCI - An Associate of the Canadian Condominium Institute • Past Director of Toronto Chapter of CCI • FRI - Fellow of the Real Estate Institute of Canada and current Director of Toronto Chapter of REIC
Email: donnaswanson@sympatico.ca 40
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
Member News
Director’s Corner
A New Look for CCI !
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS BY MR D.
We are pleased to announce and to show you our banner with the new CCI logo. In preparing ourselves to enter the 25th year of CCI National, a rebranding has been completed. This logo, which will be formally adopted by all CCI Chapters on July 1 … Canada Day … is being introduced here and on our website over the coming months. We trust our new identity will be reflective of our Canadian perspective in the condominium industry.
Q A
Does the Chairman of a condominium board have an extra vote?
When I became Chairman I purchased the book “Robert’s Rules of Order” and most questions as to how a meeting is conducted are answered. However, to answer your question, the simple answer is yes. It can be used in one of two ways, where there is a tie he can cast a deciding vote for the affirmative and where his vote in the negative will make a tie he can cast it and defeat the motion.
Q
What items can be charged to the reserve fund and what happens if the property manager charges them to the wrong account?
A
Actually the best person to ask is your accountant and your property manager. They should both be familiar with the bylaws of your corporation. Basically items of a capital nature such as washers and dryers, when they are in the common areas, would come out of the reserve fund as well as major components either in a high rise complex or townhouses. As to errors they can always be reversed either by your accountant or bookkeeper.
If you have a question for Mr “D” please send it to Editor, TheCondoVoice, cci.toronto@taylorenterprises.com.
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
41
42
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
New Members Welcome to the Following New CCI Toronto Members Corporate Members
TSCC # 1804
DSCC # 1098
YCC # 0307
MTCC # 1066
YRSCC # 1067
MTCC # 1116
YRSCC # 1072
PCC # 0389
YRVLCC # 1066
Angelo Anguelov Samuel Property Management
Individual Members
Kim Coulter Coulter Building Consultants Ltd.
TSCC # 1813
PCC # 0417 PCC # 0648 PCECC # 0739 PSCC # 0675
R. Beaubien
PSCC # 0703
C. Chifor
PSCC # 0771
J. Gallucci
PSCC # 0776
A. Guedez
TSCC # 1677 TSCC # 1758 TSCC # 1782 TSCC # 1793
Professional Members Kristine Anderson Basman Smith LLP
Rick Dresher CMD Insurance Services Inc. Scott Newhouse Shiv Pong Management
M. Gurr C. Mahon B. Pollard
Andrea Krywonis Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP.
Sponsor (Trade) Members Ron Boyko RBG Inc. Melanie Gibson Rainbow Mississauga Ltd. Roman Kowal Landscaping 4U CA Inc. Michael Nazarian Premier Air Duct Cleaning Co. Arnel Ramdath Profire Safety Services Alan Rosenberg A.R. Consulting Lee Stavrakos Interface FlorCommercial Bob Stillman ZeroDraft Peterborough
M. Rabot
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
43
Upcoming Events
Mark Your Calendars! Springfest 2007 Friday April 13th, 2007 Metro Toronto Convention Centre – North Building 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Update on Current and Emerging Provincial Condominium Regulations and Legislation – Implications for Owners, Managers and Directors Condominium law and condominium living are becoming ever more complicated with new and proposed government legislation and regulations being layered on top of, or in some way impacting, the Condominium Act, 1998. How will these affect your condominium and condominium living? Come and listen to the experts on what is here and what is coming down the government pipeline, in order for you to better protect your condominium. Speakers: Armand Conant, Maclaren Corlett LLP Maria Dimakas, Fine & Deo LLP Warren Ragoonanan, Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP
44
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
CCI Toronto Advanced Course Tuesday May 8th, 15th, 22nd and 29th, 2007 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Novotel Hotel North York, 3 Park Home Ave. Visit the CCI Website at www.ccitoronto.org for registration details! Designed for the dedicated condominium director, the CCI Advanced course will run for four consecutive Tuesday evenings from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. beginning May 8th, 2007 through May 29th, 2007. Upon completion of the course, participants should understand all aspects of reserve funds, major repairs and replacement, financial management, common problems and solutions, legal responsibilities‌ and in the last session, learn about mediation/arbitration and the new enforcement remedies available under the Condominium Act, 1998. All sessions will be held at the Novotel North York Hotel at 3 Park Home Ave (near Yonge St. and Mel Lastman Square). The cost for CCI members is $200 and non-members $250. To register for the Condominium Course and/or to obtain further information, please visit the website at www.ccitoronto.org or call the office at (416) 491-6216.
Condominiums and Human Rights A Symposium on human rights issues as they affect condominiums. Where have we been and where are we going? Impact on day-to-day administration. Dealing with a human rights complaint or claim.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 • Doubletree International Plaza Hotel 655 Dixon Road, Toronto, Ontario Full Day Event – 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Two morning presentations Lunch with Keynote Speaker Two afternoon presentations Separate question and discussion sessions in both the morning and the afternoon. Visit the CCI-National website at www.cci.ca/Events for information on Symposia Sponsorship and for information on the Regina Human Rights Symposium, May 25, 2007 Presentations, debate and discussion, at each venue, on issues of both national and local concern with speakers prominent and well respected, both national and locally, for their positions with Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals; as legal advocates on Human Rights and Condominium issues; as practitioners before Human Rights tribunals; and as practitioners in the Condominium industry.
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
45
46
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
Diversions & Distractions CONDO WORD FIND y w a l a n o i t a e r c e r t t
a t c o n t r a c t g e o x e n r n
g s e i t i l i c a f m e s e m o e
r e f a i t h m o m r p m r e j d
e n d l u o m a r i c o e k a d a i
e o r l a o d m t i n t c
m e n h i d s u e s v l u h s e e t e b s i s s t b a r i d u s n m o c i t i a t i m l a c c c a e
t e t c
d t i i
l i a b l e a
l e g i s l a t i o n o c
u o c e
e a n h i e x r p e r s o n s u n
r t u t r l p o l i c i e s n e
a s i e
h e s u o h i e l t a e g w n l e s t y c r i t i g i
s k i l l u n
w s u h a a n l
r i e n s t d u a e t i m a n n t i s y f e t i r r e e e d t p e n o g i r s e p p e r g l i d
accident accounting agreement audit auditor behalf brick care case claims committee contract damage dilligence duty ethics exercise expense facilities faith
gatehouse grow honesty human indemnified interest issue legislation liable lien law major mediation mould moves notice person policies property recreational
Spring 2007
reform repairs responsibilities retain rights rule seller serve shell shared skill sound state statement status units wall
thecondovoice
47
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
48
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
Phone: 905-206-8458 Fax: 905-206-8486 lmiddleton@chubbsecurity.com www.chubbsecutiry.com
List of Advertisers A.R. Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 ACMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Active Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Adams Mason & Tilley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Arthur Fire Protection Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Bonita Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Brokers Trust Insurance Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Brookfield Residential Services Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Brown & Beattie Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Canlight Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Carma Industries Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Carson Dunlop Weldon & Associates Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 CCF Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Certified Clean Air Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Chubb Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Cochrane Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Condominium Services Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Construction Control Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 CPL Design Interiors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 Davroc Consulting Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 Donna Swanson Real Estate Brokerage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Downtown Electric Fireplace Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 D-Tech (Nexus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 E.J. Walsh & Co. Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Enbridge Electric Connections Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Enbridge Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Enerplan Building Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 Essential Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Fine & Deo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Firenza Plumbing & Heating Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Forest Contractors Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Gerald R. Genge Building Consultants Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 G4S Security Services Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 GSA Property Management Specialists Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Harris Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Horlick Levitt Barristers & Solicitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 ICC Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 JCO & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Innovit Innovations (Kinetic Solutions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Larlyn Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Les Consultants Ingenium (Condo Manager Software) . . . . .40 M & E Engineering Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Maclaren Corlett LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Malvern Condominium Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Maxium Condo Finance Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 McCall Wynne Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Metro Group of Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Miller Thomson LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Morrison Hershfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Ontario Screen Systems Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Percel Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Pro-House Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Provident Energy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 RBC Dominion Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Rogers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 Samuel Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Sayland Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Seal-Tite Roofing & Aluminum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Soundivide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 SR Wise Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Stratacon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Summa Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Suncorp Valuations Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Toronto Hydro Energy Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Vero Property Management Services Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Waste Solutions Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Whiterose Janitorial Services Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Wilson Blanchard Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Spring 2007
thecondovoice
49
Check Out the CCI Bookstore
thecondovoice “TheCondoVoice” is published 4 times per year – Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter, by the Canadian Condominium Institute - Toronto & Area Chapter. Newsletter Directors: Mario Deo & Brian Horlick Editor: Ruth Max Advertising: Marie McNamee Composition: E-Graphics All advertising enquiries should be directed to Marie McNamee at (905) 852-2802 or marie@mcnamee.ca, or cci.toronto@taylorenterprises.com. Publications Mail Agreement #40047005 - Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to Circulation Dept. 2175 Sheppard Ave. E., Suite 310, Toronto, ON M2J 1W8
at www.ccitoronto.org Resource material for Condominium Owners, Managers and Boards of Directors
50
thecondovoice
Spring 2007
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.