CondoVoice - Winter 2011

www.ccitoronto.org

VOL. 15, NO.2 • WINTER 2010

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

Mayoral Candidates Forum!!

See pages 32 - 33 for Summary

Plus: ■

■

■

■

■

2010 ACMO/CCI Conference Highlights Surviving the G20 and Other Emergencies Insurance Advice for Owners and Boards Hoarders in Condo Units What Does Standard of Care Really Mean? - Part Two

■

■

■

■

Unit Repair Costs: Above and Below What Is “Reasonable”? - Examining Common Expense Collection Post-Jaworowski Sidewalk Snow/Ice Removal Responsibilities The Noise Issue - What To Do About It (And More)

… and more PM #40047055

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

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

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

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

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

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

OPERATIONS MANAGER - Lynn Morrovat ADMINISTRATOR - Maria Galati EDUCATION COORDINATOR - Josee Lefebvre

Contents Features

8 11 13 15 19 21

Surviving the G20 and Other Emergencies

by Laura Lee

Insurance Advice for Owners and Boards

by Audrey M. Loeb

Hoarders in Condo Units

by Denise Lash

What Does the Standard of Care Really Mean? - Part Two

by Michael Gwynne

Unit Repair Costs: Above and Below

by Bora Nam

What Is “Reasonable”? - Examining Common Expense Collection Post-Jaworowski

by Brian Horlick

27 37 51

Sidewalk Snow/Ice Removal Responsibilities

by J. Robert Gardiner

Condo Energy Retrofit Projects Celebrated

by Murray Johnson

The Noise Issue - Knowing What To Do About It (And More)

by Avril Lavallee, & Michael Clifton

CCI News 5 6 32 34 41 45 47 49 61

President’s Message From the Editor CCI-Toronto Hosts Mayoral Forum 2010 ACMO/CCI-T Conference Highlights Members’ Corner New Members ACCI Member Profile - Henry Jansen CCI National News Upcoming Events

Cover photo – Mayoral Forum

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

3

Contributors “TheCondoVoice” is published 4 times per year – Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter, by Taylor Enterprises Ltd. on behalf of the Canadian Condominium Institute Toronto & Area Chapter.

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

If you are interested in writing articles for TheCondoVoice magazine, please contact Marie McNamee at (905) 852-2802 or at marie@mcnamee.ca. Article topics must be on issues of interest to Condominium Directors and must be informative rather than commercial in nature.

The authors, the Canadian Condominium Institute and its representatives will not be held liable in any respect whatsoever for any statement or advice contained herein.

Articles should not be relied upon as a professional opinion or as an authoritative or comprehensive answer in any case.

Professional advice should be obtained after discussing all particulars applicable in the specific circumstances in order to obtain an opinion or report capable of absolving condominium directors from liability [under s. 37 (3) (b) of the Condominium Act, 1998].

Authors’ views expressed in any article are not necessarily those of the Canadian Condominium Institute. All contributors are deemed to have consented to publication of any information provided by them, including business or personal contact information.

Consider supporting the advertisers and service providers referred to in this magazine, recognizing that they have been supporters of CCI.

Advertisements are paid advertising and do not imply endorsement of or any liability whatsoever on the part of CCI with respect to any product, service or statement.

Publications Mail Agreement #40047055 Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to Circulation Dept. 2175 Sheppard Ave. E., Suite 310, Toronto, ON M2J 1W8

4

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

MICHAEL H. CLIFTON AND AVRIL LAVALLEE, BA, LL.B., (The Noise Issue - Knowing What To Do About It (And More), page 51.) Michael Clifton is a Condominium Management and Land Development lawyer with the firm Clifton Kok LLP in Ayr, ON. He holds bachelor and master degrees in philosophy as well as a degree in law and he was called to the bar in 2000.

Michael earned his ACCI designation from CCI in 2008 and has served on the Golden Horseshoe CCI Board of Directors since 2006. Michael has co-authored two Ontario Condominium law books, “A Planners and Municipalities Guide to the Condominium Act, 1998” and “Essential Issues for Realtors on the Condominium Act, 1998” Avril Lavallee is an associate lawyer at McCarter Grespan Beynon Weir LLP. She practices in the areas of condominium law and real estate, providing advice and legal services to developers, condominium boards and managers throughout South Western Ontario.

J. ROBERT GARDINER, B.A., LL.B., ACCI, FCCI, (Sidewalk Snow/Ice Removal Responsib-ilities, page 27) is the author of Beyond the Condominium Act (ACMO RCM College Text). He is the author or editor of ten legal texts and 250 published legal articles. Bob is senior partner in the law firm Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP, practicing condominium law in Toronto and is pastPresident of the Canadian Condominium Institute (Toronto & Area).

MICHAEL GWYNNE, B.A., M.B.A., C.G.A., LL.B., LL.M. (TAX), (What Does the Standard of Care Really Mean?- Part Two, page 15) practices with The Harris Gwynne Law Firm in association with Sally Harris.

Prior to joining Sally in October 2010, Michael spent several years at two well-known condominium law firms and currently sits on the ACMO Communications Committee. Michael has taught a portion of one of the Canadian Condominium Institute courses, moderated at ACMO/ CCI sessions and/or conferences, and has written for the Miller Thomson “Let’s Talk Condo” Newsletter and thecondovoice magazine. Michael’s practice focuses on condominium law and litigation as well as owner and shareholder disputes and mediations.

BRIAN HORLICK, B.COMM., B.C.L.

LL.B., ACCI (What Is “Reasonable”?

- Examining Common Expense Collection Post-Jaworowski, page 21) has been successfully engaged

in the practice of law for 25 years.

He is a senior partner with the law firm of Horlick Levitt Di Lella LLP and is an expert in the area of condominium law. He is a director on the CCI-Toronto Board, Co-Chair of the CCI Legal & Governmental Affairs Committees, Chair of the ACMO Associates Executive Communications Committee.

MURRAY JOHNSON, (Condo Energy Retrofit Projects Celebrated, page 37) is Vice-President, Client Service Development with Brookfield Residential Services Ltd. He joined Brookfield in 2008, bringing with him over seven years of experience

as a Regional Manager for other condominium management firms. Since the early 1980's Murray has been involved in various aspects of Facility Management, Employee Training and Development, and Organizational Development. As a certified Trainer and Project Manager, the four years prior to joining Brookfield that were focused primarily on new condominium start-ups, performance audits and first year deficit recoveries seemed to be a good fit. The author of a two year CHMC sanctioned Ice Damming study Murray is also a member in good standing of CCI and ACMO. DENISH LASH, B.SC, LLB, ACCI, FCCI, (Hoarders in Condo Units,

page 13) Denise Lash co-heads

the condominium department of the law firm Heenan Blaikie LLP. She is a regular columnist for various publications and has also appeared on several well known radio and television shows. In 2006, Denise was the host of MondoCondo TV, a national programme. As a frequent lecturer, she volunteers her time to promote condo education. Denise is also the founder of the Toronto Condo Show, a one-stop consumer show featuring condominium suppliers.

Laura Lee, RCM, ACCI, (Surviving the G20 and Other Emergencies, page 8) is a frequent instructor of college level industry related courses and is a regular speaker at a variety of condominium seminars and conferences including the CCIT/ACMO Annual Conference, CCI Directors courses and ACMO RCM courses.

AUDREY LOEB,

L.S.M., B.A., LL.M.,

(Insurance Advice for Owners and Boards, page 11) is the author of the leading texts on Condominium Law in Ontario entitled - Condominium: Law and Administration and The Condominium Act: A User’s Manual, published by Carswell. She is Professor Emeritus of Ryerson University. Audrey is a frequent lecturer for the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Ontario Bar Association and Toronto Real Estate Board. She is a regular columnist in the Toronto Real Estate Board News. She is also a former member of the National Board of Directors of the Canadian Condominium Institute (CCI), the Consumer Advisory Committee of the Board of Directors of the Tarion Home Warranty Program and the Board of Directors of the Real Estate Council of Ontario. Audrey was awarded The Law Society Medal in 2008, which recognizes outstanding Ontario lawyers whose service reflects the highest ideals of the profession.

BORA NAM (Unit Repair Costs: Above and Below, page 19) graduated from the University of Western Ontario Law School and was called to the Bar in 2009. Bora completed her articles with Deacon, Spears, Fedson & Montizambert and joined the firm as an associate in 2009.

During her articling term, Bora had exposure to all areas of condominium law, particularly in condominium litigation matters.

President’s Message s I write this, 2010 is drawing to a close and, with it, my two year term as President for the Toronto & Area Chapter of the Canadian Condominium Institute. This will be my last President’s message as I pass the torch to the incoming President. The last two years have been very been fruitful for CCI-T and I am privileged and proud to have been a part of its accomplishments.

A

I would first like to thank the members of the Board of Directors for their hard work and support of the Chapter and its membership. I am extremely fortunate to have served as part of a Board that exemplified the commitment to condominiums for which CCI stands. Without their diligence and dedication, we would not have been able to accomplish all we have. You are justified in feeling proud of their leadership as I am, but also for me they have become close friends.

As I said, we have achieved much, and I would like to mention just a few of our achievements, for which I wish to thank the Committees and their Chairs.

• Membership – membership is consistently over 1,000 and growing.

• Education – we have completely revamped the Level 300 Course material (fantastic material) and are working on the other levels.

• Public Relations – The Condovoice is, as always, incredible and growing. We are also looking into retaining a public relations consultant

• Annual Conference – the Conference is getting bigger and better and in 2011 it will be at the Toronto Congress Centre.

• Government Relations – I am Co-chair of this committee with Chris Antipas and the committee has been, and will continue to be, constantly in the offices and faces of every politician we can find, at all levels of government to promote and advocate the interests of condominiums

• Harmonized Sales Tax – after a huge effort, the Government Relations committee was successful negotiating a concession on the HST for reserve funds for condominiums in existence as of May 1, 2001, whereby the deadline for topping up the reserve fund has been extended to 2016 at the earliest and 2019 at the latest, resulting in less pressure on corporations and owners to meet the requirement. We are very pleased, as you should be, that government listened to us on this important issue.

• Legislative Brief on Revisions to the Condominium Act, 1998 – I have had the privilege of Chairing this committee that has been working extremely hard over the last four years thoroughly reviewing the Act and preparing an extensive Brief containing suggested changes.

With input from all sectors of the condominium community (from owners to every type of professional), this has been a passion of mine and is nearing completion. On November 5th at the condominium conference I presented an interim report to the Deputy Minister who will be delivering it to the Hon. John Gerretsen, Minister of Consumer Services (the Minister responsible for the Act). The Government Relations Committee will be meeting with the Minister and opposition parties in the near future to press all condominium issues and this Brief.

• Special Projects – our President’s Club is an ongoing big success with usually two meetings

Continued on page 62

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

5

From the Editor The PIPEDA MESS!!!!!!

Condominium corporations collect personal information in the course of their operations. Personal information that is collected, used or disclosed for primarily commercial purposes is governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”). Indications are that PIPEDA will, sooner or later, also apply to Ontario condominium corporations. It should not. We aren't sure. Not enough cases. More confusion. Lawyers have different opinions. But it looks like it is going to apply, like it or not. I don't like it. However, whether it should apply or not is the subject of another editorial, not this one. This editorial is about an incorrect decision of when and how privacy legislation applies.

In addition to the collection methods listed above, there is also one often unconsidered method of collection of personal information – video surveillance cameras. Many condominium corporations collect personal information of their residents daily with the use of video surveillance cameras throughout the building. Reviewing the cameras can show you who and when a person leaves and arrives at the building and the activities that they undertake while on the common elements. Many buildings also provide their residents with the ability to view live-feeds of their surveillance cameras.

In British Columbia, residents of a condominium corporation filed complaints about the use of video surveillance in their corporation. At this particular condominium, cameras were installed at the entrances, in the parkade areas, in the pool area and outside the fitness center. All residents were able to receive live-feeds of these cameras in their units. Some residents’ complaints were that the condominium corporation had violated the Personal Information Protection Act (legislation that is similar to PIPEDA), based on an argument that the cameras were being used to determine infractions of the rules and other condo docs.

The BC Privacy Commission decided that use of video to enforce minor infractions was not reasonable and contrary to the privacy legislation. Further, the BC Privacy Commission decided that daily viewing of footage from cameras in the absence of a complaint or evidence of an unauthorized entry, theft or threat to personal safety was also not warranted. The condominium was ordered to store the video for three weeks and to only review it if there was a legitimate reason to do so. Sooooo, let the problem happen, be blind to it, impotent, until it's too late. Oh yes, and the potential criminals who would likely do something are so happy about this decision, because all they have to do is cover their faces to avoid recognition. Just think about this for a second. Condo security has to cover their eyes. No viewing of cameras unless there is an incident or complaint. Come on, let's be real about this.

Oh, and the decision also said that if, while reviewing the videos for the purposes of a "proper" event (theft or other crime), and at the same time, a minor infraction contrary to the condo docs occurred, the video could not be used for the purposes of enforcing a condo docs infraction! Why not? Whose privacy is being infringed? Where is the common sense? This is just paranoia. It's security personnel and the board viewing the videos, in very limited circumstances. People who infringe rules are happy now, video doesn’t count. Ha ha. Privacy rights prevail.

It was also decided that providing live-feeds from the cameras at the entrances of the building to all residents was not reasonable, as there was no evidence that the live-feeds increased the security of the building.

It's true that residents can use these feeds to determine when their neighbours are leaving and arriving at the building, allowing potential thieves to know when their neighbours’ units are vacant, or allowing angry residents to know when they will be able to personally confront their neighbours on the common elements. But I still have a problem letting the government decide the issue. In a condominium the board should decide if this type of wide surveillance/convenience is necessary. It really depends on each community. Who are we (the government) to decide what is needed in this instance?

Mario Deo, LL.B.

6

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

Surviving the G20 and Other Emergencies

BY LAURA LEE, RCM, ACCI ENHANCED MANAGEMENT SERVICES manager’s job is altered day-today. You start with managing a building, then to managing a multi-million dollar budget, to being responsible for a team who is able to handle any emergency or situation that comes your way.

A

The G20 was no exception. For buildings in the downtown core this was a very costly venture: between $5,000 and $25,000 of unforeseen expenses which cannot be recovered. On fairly short notice managers were advised of the event and the potential disruption to the community. By attending numerous meetings it was quickly realized that the plans and effects of the event were continuously changing and were a moving target. In hindsight you wish you had had the inside scoop on how things would be handled by the officials.

The G20 impacted anyone and everyone in the area. Whether you lived, worked or were just visiting the downtown area, you were affected.

Businesses had to close, workers were forced to stay home and everyone was faced with additional costs as a result of the event. The safety of pedestrians and vehicular traffic was called into question. The City spent millions of dollars to create barriers to protect and keep the peace. It also suddenly caused the police, fire and other City staff to become more aware of the surround8

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

ings and how susceptible and unprotected we were. As the saying goes, for those who live in glass houses beware of children throwing stones. Architects

hoped for the best. Research was done to find out about similar events in similar cities and what types of activities were carried on. Managers deter-

‘Managers had to remove any potential weapons from the perimeter of the buildings such as ornamental stones, furniture etc.’ and designers build for aesthetic beauty not potential risks of this nature.

Managers and Boards who took their jobs seriously and cared about the communities quickly set themselves into proactive mode asking the following questions:

• How will this affect us?

• Will there be any disruption for our residents?

• Will they get home?

• Are we in or out of the security zone?

• How close will we be to the activity?

• What do we need to do to protect ourselves?

• What are the susceptible areas?

• What might happen?

• And many more...

Plans were made for the worst and

mined, based on those activities, what types of things might occur and set themselves on a mission to be proactive and protect the building, residents and staff.

For those condominium corporations located in the direct vicinity of the event, this meant a lot of extra work and commitment from the Board, management and site staff. For the residents of the building it was like “lock down” unless you had photo identification with the building address on it.

Suddenly the door and customer service to which you were accustomed to receiving became security and protection for the property. For many it was a weekend away from it all.

Managers had to remove any potential weapons from the perimeter of the buildings such as ornamental stones, furniture, etc. Potential areas where

security breaches were identified and measures were implemented to eliminate the risk. Fencing for protection from vandalism, where possible, was installed and corporations went to the expense of having supplies on hand to respond in case an incident did occur.

Corporations were required to remove all of the exterior elements that beautify, enhance or were there for practical reasons. For items which could not be stored inside, alternate arrangements needed to be made, or modifications were required to eliminate the items from view, otherwise they were removed by the police and stored until after the event. The authorities took the liberty of inspecting all property at any time and scrutinize the work that was being done or forced more to be done (often with little regard for the owners).

The hotline for the event was less than helpful with little regard for the impact on the community.

ed to be alert, aware and responsible for their post, resulting in a smooth operation.

What we did not expect in one building we manage were individuals in the buildings looking to maximize their income potential by offering to lease their homes for anywhere from $350

per night to $2,000 per night with no regard to the safety and security of the building. Through innovative problem solving we were able to deal with this swiftly and without incident, although some were disappointed for sure.

We are pleased to report that although the G20 was unexpected, the Board,

Once the property had been secured, managers needed to prepare an allencompassing emergency plan with step-by-step procedures on how to handle any type of situation which might occur. As you know, people panic in emergency situations and anything could happen. The more prepared you are, the better prepared you are to handle any problems. In addition, plans needed to be put in place for ingress and egress to the property in events of this nature. Communication is the key to success.

A command station needed to be established with 24 hour support for the onsite team. Additional security, cleaning and superintendent staff needed to be booked to ensure adequate coverage and protection. Accommodation for vehicles such as bicycles needed to be put in place. Lastly, managers needed to ensure that an emergency kit, two-way radios and food supplies were on site for the duration of the event.

The final stages of the plan involved individual job descriptions, procedures and sufficient training. Everyone need-

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

9

residents, staff and authorities were exceptional in making things a success.

For all of the managers who planned and persevered give yourself a pat on the back, you deserve it.

You cannot help but ask yourself, was all this work and expense for a couple of days worth it? How can we be more prepared the next time?

The answer is simple, regardless of what occurred or potentially could have occurred – it is critical that you have an emergency plan in place. Whether it’s a blackout, elevator entrapment, flood, fire or City event – emergencies are going to happen. Be prepared and you will have ultimate success.

In consideration of your on-going plan the following steps are recommended: • Take time to consider the types of emergencies that may occur

10

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

• Identify who should be contacted and in what order

• Clearly itemize the steps needed to be taken in each case • Include things like announcements which should be made, notices to be posted

• Ensure you have the right team on board

• Set out details of what is expected by each individual • Depending on the type and magnitude of the emergency you may need to have volunteers prepared to assist • Keep the fire safety plan and valve charts for the building handy

• Lastly, index and train the team; it will be the key to success.

Types of Emergencies to Consider • Fire • Evacuation • Flood

• • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • •

Power Outage Medical Emergencies Elevator Emergencies Suicide Drowning In Suite Death Abandoned or Lost Child Riots/Strikes/Lockouts/Labour Disputes Criminal Activity Mechanical Breakdown Damage to the Condominium Property Train Derailment Environmental Disaster Terrorist Activity Natural Disasters

Large or small, emergencies are inevitable. Being prepared, having a plan, communicating and working with an exceptional team is the key to success. ■

Insurance Advice for Owners and Boards

BY AUDREY M. LOEB, L.S.M., B.A., LL.M. MILLER THOMSON LLP n my experience, the best advice you can give a condominium unit owner that is easy for him or her to follow has to do with insurance. The advice is two-fold. First, unit owners must carry insurance and, second, it should be with the same company that insures the condominium corporation.

I

I want to illustrate my point by telling you about a meeting I recently attended between a unit owner, the board of directors and its management team. At this meeting, there were numerous issues relating to repairs which needed to be done to the owner’s unit, and questions relating to the insurance coverage and the parties’ respective responsibilities. The unit owner and the corporation each had their own insurance adjuster with them at the meeting.

The unit owner had not been living in her unit for some time due to repairs that needed to be done to the unit. Her insurer had been paying her costs of living in a hotel. The repairs were taking longer than anyone was happy about and the end was just coming into view.

There were disputes regarding whether the owner or the corporation’s insurer should bear responsibility for some of the items which needed repair as the Standard Unit By-law was not perfect.

The unit owner’s relocation coverage was about to end since the dollar value of that coverage was limited and the owner had been out of her unit for quite some time.

As we sat at this meeting and tried to work out a time frame for completion

of the work and who would do what in what order, I realized how easy it is when there are two different insurance companies for each of them to take the position that the other should cover the loss.

The unit owner’s adjuster turned to me as counsel for the condominium corporation at the end of the meeting and

quickly as the owner would like, as there is no one to whom the insurer can look for coverage except itself. So many disputes can be avoided if both the unit owner and the corporation are insured by the same company.

I have been advised, although I cannot verify it, that only about 25% of all condominium unit owners actually carry

‘I realized how easy it is when there are two different insurance companies for each of them to take the position that the other should cover the loss.’ said, “our insured’s relocation coverage is almost finished. If the corporation does not complete the repairs quickly, we may look to your client for the costs”. I turned to the corporation’s adjuster and was able to say the following, “Since the corporation and the unit owner are insured by the same company, it does not matter to me which adjuster agrees to bear the expense because the same insurer is going to pay for it”. The adjusters knew immediately that there was no further reason to continue the discussion.

In other words, if both the corporation and the unit owner have the same insurer, there are no holes in coverage and it does not really matter whether the condominium corporation is acting as

insurance on their units and their personal possessions. This is a mistake.

All unit owners should carry insurance for the following reasons:

● Many condominium corporations are increasing the amounts of the insurance deductibles which apply under their policies. The unit owner can insure his or her responsibility for the deductible, which the corporation may claim from him or her;

● Many condominium corporations are enacting by-laws, in addition to the provisions in the Condominium Act, that make unit owners responsible for the deductibles in all circumstances except when the corporation has negligently caused the loss, even if the owner/resident may not have Winter 2010

thecondovoice

11

actually acted willfully or negligently in causing a loss;

● Insurance can protect an owner for living costs if he or she has to relocate from his or her unit because of repairs which need to be carried out as a result of an insured loss;

● Special assessment coverage can be secured so that if a condominium

corporation does not have adequate insurance for an insured loss it has suffered, and needs to levy a special assessment to make the necessary repairs, the owner can recover that special assessment under his or her insurance policy;

● If a unit is tenanted and the tenant cannot live in the unit because of repairs that need to be carried out

due to an insured loss, the owner can insure the continuation of the rental income;

● A unit owner who negligently causes damage to another unit owner or that owner’s possessions may be liable for damages and the insurer will represent that owner, if legal action is commenced, and be responsible for the value of the losses that person may have suffered; and

● Every homeowner has personal possessions which can be damaged and/or destroyed. Many unit owners have made extensive improvements to their units. These things can be protected with insurance if an insured loss occurs.

In my experience, the best advice you can give a condominium corporation on insurance matters is that it have a good standard unit schedule or by-law.

Unfortunately for those condominium corporations who received these as part of their turnover documents, we are starting to see that these schedules are not practical and do not provide the protection condominium corporations need.

These developer-prepared standard unit schedules are usually the list of suite features that the developer offered to purchasers as part of their agreements of purchase and sale. They are often not compliant with the Condominium Act and include items which most condominium corporations do not want to insure, such as flooring, countertops and appliances. All condominium corporations that received a standard unit schedule from the developer after May 5, 2001 should review the schedule to see if it is suitable for the corporation.

I recently reviewed one where the exterior features of a townhouse unit, including the deck, etc., were included in the standard unit definition.

The standard unit schedule can be corrected with a Standard Unit By-law and I recommend that if your corporation needs one, it be done as soon as possible. ■

12

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

Hoarders in Condo Units

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

n September 24th, 2010, a fire occurred in an apartment building at 200 Wellesley Street East in Toronto in a suite that was known to property management as a hoarder's unit. Supposedly steps had been taken to deal with the suite, but obviously not done soon enough. The fire occurred and luckily did not end up with the loss of any lives but displaced 1200 people from their homes.

O

Condominium Corporations have the same challenges as apartment building owners and should be viewing this latest incident as a warning sign that hoarding should be taken very seriously and when discovered it is important to move quickly.

We recently encountered two condominium corporations who discovered that they had unit owners in their buildings whose units looked like the homes portrayed on the show “Hoarders”.

It was only when management entered the units for common element repairs that they discovered that the units were uninhabitable, safety hazards and health risks to both the unit residents and other residents in the building.

The Condominium Act (the “Act”) allows a condominium corporation to go directly to court to commence an application before the courts under

‘Hoarding should be taken very seriously and when discovered it is important to move quickly.’

Section 117 of the Act , to obtain an order where a situation exists that poses a threat to any residents or potential damages to the property.

First steps are to notify the Fire Department and they will often involve the police to force entry to the unit if required. It is important that management and/or the board always be accompanied by one or two witnesses when entering a unit, to avoid allegations of theft.

Notice should be given to the owner to

clean up the unit and if the owner fails to do so the condominium corporation can proceed to clean the unit under Section 92 of the Condominium Act and charge the costs back to the unit owner.

If the owner or occupant prevents the condominium corporation from entering the unit or the condominium corporation does not want to get involved in the removal, a court application can be commenced under Section 117 of the Act. I recently had a discussion with Chief Fire Prevention Officer, Dave Cirouch Winter 2010

thecondovoice

13

of the City of Burlington, who has encountered these situations and I was surprised how common they are. Mr. Cirouch did say that the Fire Department does have authority to remove items from the unit but will not do so, even if they obtain an inspection order, because of liability issues. There is a program called “Gatekeepers” run by the Catholic Family Services of Hamilton, which often is used by the Fire Departments in the Halton region, to work with the occupants of the unit.

The program started in Hamilton in 2005, expanding into Burlington and Oakville in 2009 and is now across Halton region. After discussion with Judit Zsoldos, a manager with Gatekeepers, I was astonished to hear that since 2005, the Hamilton Gatekeepers program has handled over 400 cases of hoarding and severe selfneglect, which is called Diogenes Syndrome dealing with age groups over 55. The gender statistics show that 75 per cent of those cases relate to females.

According to Ms. Zoldos, she is only aware of one agency in Toronto, Extreme Cleaning, which only assists with cleaning and helps clients stay independent. This is operated by VHA Home Health Care and their phone number is 416-489-2500. This is different than Gatekeepers but does at least give some assistance to those in need.

It is clear that additional funding is needed to deal with this ever increasing problem. In the meantime property management companies and condominium corporations should move quickly when they discover a unit that has the potential to cause harm or injury to others. ■

• • • • • • • • • • •

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

Head Office (905)

832-6614

Toll-free (877)

253-3648

www.whiterosejanitorial.com

EXCEEDING YOUR EXPECTATIONS “...combined security and emergency response with concierge and hospitality.”

“...our team prides itself on being able to provide our clients with a secure and pleasant environment in which to live.”

E-mail: info@pillarsecurity.ca

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

832-6614

49 Elm Street, Suite 202, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1H1 E-mail: info@whiterosejanitorial.com

“...Sentinel gives you the ability to search for records on a fully integrated, secure database.”

14

Fax (905)

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

2333 Dundas Street West, Suite 206 Toronto, Ontario M6R 3A6 Direct line: 416-777-1812 Fax: 416-777-0555

www.pillarsecurity.ca

What Does the Standard of Care Really Mean? – PART TWO

BY MICHAEL GWYNNE, B.A., M.B.A., C.G.A., LL.B., LL.M. (TAX) THE HARRIS GWYNNE LAW FIRM

T

his article is the second of two articles, the first of which was in the Fall 2010 issue and provided the reader with an overview of that standard of care in accordance with section 37 of the Condominium Act, 1998, c. 19 (the “Act”) and the indemnification provided to directors or officers under section 38 of the Act.

As you may recall from the Fall 2010 issue, one of the main questions that is commonly asked by both directors and officers who are new to a board and those who are incumbent directors and/or officers is, what is the standard of care that directors and/or officers need to exercise.

This second article will deal with the legal interpretation of the exercise of care, diligence and skill that is required under section 37(1)(b) and the objective standard imposed under this section. This will include a brief review of some of the issues involved in the interpretation of this objective standard and a review of the case law with respect to the factors that a Court will consider, which may provide guidance to directors and officers.

Readers are once again reminded that this article does not attempt to address the hierarchy of decision making, the reasonableness of by-laws or rules, or all of the obligations of directors and/or officers as set out in the Act. However directors and officers should also, at a

minimum, review these sections of the Act [section 7], by-laws [sections 21, 56, 57 and 59] and rules [sections 58 and 59].

Overview of section 37 of the Act

Prior to the discussion of the legal interpretation of the exercise of care, diligence and skill it is worthwhile for the reader to once again refresh himself or herself with the standard of care provisions set out in section 37(1) of the Act which provides as follows: Standard of care

37. (1) Every director and every officer of a corporation in exercising the powers and discharging the duties of office shall,

(a) act honestly and in good faith; and

(b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances.

The Exercise of Care, Diligence and Skill – A New Legal Standard?

Section 37(1)(b) of the Act sets out the relatively new statutory duty which requires that every director and every officer of a corporation in exercising the powers and discharging the duties of office shall exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably pru-

dent person would exercise in comparable circumstances. Prior to the enactment of the Condominium Act, 1998, c. 19, there was no statutory requirement requiring the exercise of the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances. This addition to the Act mirrors the standard of care imposed on directors of business corporations under clause 134(1)(b) of the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, and the standard of care imposed on directors of business corporations under section 122.1 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”) and raises the standard for directors and officers above that found in the predecessor Act. Unfortunately, there is little case law that defines the objective standard of care in the context of the Act.

Prior to the introduction of section 37(1)(b) the standard of care for directors and officers was largely governed by the common law. An important feature of the common law test is that it is subjective, requiring only that a person exhibit a level of skill and diligence commensurate with their own knowledge and experience.

The leading case on the common law duty of care is City Equitable Fire Insurance Co. Re [1925] in which Romer J. at page 408 stated the test as follows: Continued on page 16

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

15

“In discharging those duties, the director (a) must act honestly, and (b) must exercise such degree of skill and diligence as would amount to the reasonable care which an ordinary man might be expected to take, in the circumstances, on his own behalf. But, (c) he need not exhibit in the performance of his duties a greater degree of skill than may reasonably be expected from a person of his knowledge and experience, in other words, he is not liable from mere errors of judgement; (d) he is not bound to give continuous attention to the affairs of his company; his duties are of an intermittent nature to be performed at periodical board meetings, and at meetings have any committee to which he is appointed, and though not bound to attend such meetings he ought to attend them when reasonably able to do so; and (e) in respect of all duties which, having

16

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

regard to the exigencies of business and the articles of association, may properly be left to some other official, he is, in the absence of grounds for suspicion, justified entrusting beneficial to perform such duties honestly.” [ Emphasis Added]

With the enactment of the new statutory language “that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances” contained in section 37(1)(b), a more stringent objective standard has been established.

While there has been little judicial consideration of section 37(1)(b) of the Act, there has been much activity in recent years concerning the duty of care contained in s. 122(1) of the CBCA which mirrors the wording in section 37(1)(b) of the Act. Section 122(1) of the CBCA provides as follows: 122. (1) Every director and officer of a Corporation in exercising

their powers and discharging their duties shall; (a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the Corporation; and (b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances.

In Peoples Department Stores Inc. (Trustee of) v. Wise, [2004] 3 S.C.R., (“Peoples”) the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 122(1)(b) of the CBCA created an objective standard. In writing for the Court Justices Major and Deschamps stated;

63. “[…] We prefer to describe it as an objective standard. To say that the standard is objective makes it clear that the factual aspects of the circumstances surrounding the actions of the director or offi-

cer are important in the case of the s. 122(1)(b) duty of care, as opposed to the subjective motivation of the director or officer, which is the central focus of the statutory fiduciary duty of s. 122(1)(a) of the CBCA.”

The Court further expanded on the test by stating that:

67. “Directors and officers will not be held to be in breach of the duty of care under s.

122(1)(b) of the CBCA if they act prudently and on a reasonably informed basis. The decisions they make must be reasonable business decisions in light of all the circumstances about which the directors or officers knew or ought to have known. In determining whether directors have acted in a manner that breached the duty of care, it is worth repeating that perfection is not demanded. Courts are ill suited and should be reluctant to second guess the application of business expertise to the considerations that are involved in corporate decision-making, but they are capable, on the facts of any case, of determining whether an appropriate degree of prudence and diligence was brought to bear in reaching was claimed to be a reasonable decision at the time it was made.”

The decision in Peoples provides guidance to directors and officers with respect to the standard that is required in exercising their duty of care under section 37(1)(b) of the Act given the similar wording to the CBCA. Directors and officers should be aware, however, that it is difficult to predict whether the courts will apply the test in People’s, which was determined under the CBCA, to s. 37(1)(b) of the Act given that policy considerations may warrant a more flexible standard.

There is, of course, differing thought on this issue within the legal community. While some legal practitioners have suggested that the legislative intent of section 37(1) is to establish a standard that ensures proper management and administration of the corporation by its directors and officers while not being so high as to deter prospective directors, others have suggested that CBCA standard may be appropriate given the value of capital assets of condominium corporations and the significant operating budgets and reserve funds under the control of boards of directors. In the event that a Court were to determine that the policy consideration of not deterring prospective directors was significant, a more flexible standard may be adopted by the Court.

In Summary

Directors and officers are subject to a statutory standard of care to act honestly and in good faith, and to exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances. Based on the commentary provided in Peoples, directors and officers should ensure that they act prudently and on a reasonably informed basis. The decisions they make must be reasonable business decisions in light of all the circumstances about which the directors or officers knew or ought to have known. Given that the lack of court decisions providing definitive guidance on the objective standard of care under section 37(1)(b) of the Act, and that such decisions depend on the specific facts of each case, directors and officers should also ensure that appropriate liability insurance is maintained by the corporation at all times, and that such coverage continues even after an officer or director retires as liability insurance is generally issued on a claims made basis.

As always, if any director or officer is unsure about his/her duty and/or obligations, consult and listen to your experts and in the case of officers do not act unilaterally, but make sure that your actions are approved by the board! ■

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

17

Unit Repair Costs: Above and Below

BY BORA NAM DEACON SPEARS, FEDSON & MONTIZAMBERT onsider the following situation: a resident makes a complaint that on occasion, water is leaking into his/her unit from the unit above.

The Condominium Corporation repeatedly asks the owner of the above unit to make the necessary investigations and repairs, in order to prevent any further leaks and the resulting damage to the unit below. The owner fails to do so and the Corporation steps in and performs the necessary investigation and repairs to the above unit, on the owner’s behalf.

The Corporation also performs repairs to the water damage to the unit below.

When all is said and done, who is responsible for these repair costs?

C

Duty to Repair

Although section 90(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Act”) states that an owner’s obligation to maintain his/her unit does not extend to “repair after damage”, the Act also provides that a Corporation’s declaration can alter the obligation and make each owner responsible for repairs to his/her unit. Accordingly, if the declaration contains such a provision, as the vast majority do, an owner is required to maintain his/her unit and must repair it in the event of damage. Moreover, pursuant to section 92(1) of the Act, if an owner fails to repair his/her unit within a reasonable time after damage occurs, the Corporation is required to do the work on the owner’s behalf.

Also, if an owner fails to maintain his/her unit within a reasonable time

and the failure presents a potential risk of damage to the property or to the assets of the Corporation, or a potential risk of personal injury to persons on the property, the Corporation may do the necessary work on the owner’s behalf. In each case, the Corporation can charge all of the costs to the owner who failed to act, as an additional common expense.

Coverage Under the Corporation’s Insurance Policy While the above logic and clarity appears final, section 99(1) of the Act adds an extra wrinkle. It requires that the Corporation insure the units (up to the “standard unit” fittings and fixtures) for specific perils such as water escape, fire, windstorm, hail, etc. If the damage to the owner’s unit was caused by an insured peril, the Act provides that the owner’s liability for damage to his/her unit will extend only up to the amount of the insurance deductible and only if the owner or a resident/tenant of the unit causes damage to the unit through an act or omission.

It should also be noted that the Corporation cannot off-load the entire cost of repairing a unit onto the owner by electing not to make a claim to its insurer. In the case of Carleton Condominium Corp. No 26 v.

Nicholson (2009, Ont. S.C.J., affirmed

by Ont. C.A.), the Honourable Justice Power stated in part as follows:

“The Act requires all condominiums to maintain insurance coverage for the benefit of all owners on all common property and all units (up to the “standard unit”) for specified perils and damage. Therefore, where damage occurs to a unit and the corporation’s master insurance policy provides coverage for such damage, the corporation is responsible for repairs to such damage (either by making an insurance claim, or where it elects not to make such a claim for economic reasons, the corporation is itself responsible for repairs to the damage).”

It therefore follows that if the Corporation chooses not to make an otherwise available insurance claim for damage to a unit, then the Corporation will itself likely be legally responsible for the entire cost of the repairs to the unit (subject to its right to charge back the deductible as discussed below).

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

19

Standard Unit vs. Improvements Generally speaking, the obligation to repair units after damage does not include improvements made to a unit.

The only exceptions are those condominium corporations created under the old legislation that had the obligation of repairing improvements to a unit made prior to the registration of the declaration and description, if they do not have a standard unit by-law in place. For the rest, in order to determine what forms part of the standard unit and what is considered an improvement, the Corporation may refer to the declarant’s schedule setting out what constitutes a standard unit for each class of unit. The Corporation may also pass a standard unit by-law to establish what constitutes a standard unit.

Insurance Deductible By-Law If the owner’s failure to repair after damage or to maintain his/her unit results in damage to the unit below or to the common elements, the question of who is responsible for the repair costs will depend on the cause of the damage and if the Corporation has enacted an insurance deductible bylaw. Pursuant to section 105(3) of the Act, a Corporation may register a bylaw making a unit owner responsible for damages – up to the amount of the insurance deductible – emanating from his/her unit into another unit or to the

20

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

common elements, provided that the damage was not caused by an act or omission of the Corporation. It is, therefore, recommended that a corporation consult its legal counsel as to enacting an insurance deductible bylaw if it has not done so already.

Extent of Corporation’s Duty to Repair

However, as a matter of law, it is important to note that the Corporation’s statutory obligations of repair and/or maintenance do not make the Corporation an insurer. The obligation of the Corporation is to do what is reasonable in carrying out its statutory duty of repair and maintenance. The standard of care does not equal strict liability or absolute perfection on the part of the Corporation in carrying out its statutory duty. The Corporation’s duty to repair and maintain does not mean that the Corporation guarantees or insures against any unpredictable and/or unknown failure of the repairs.

Provided that the Corporation is not negligent and properly carried out the repairs, the Corporation should not be responsible for resultant damage to components of the unit that are the owner’s responsibility to maintain and repair.

Although the foregoing principles are found in case law from other provinces, the law is also applicable in Ontario. In

fact, there is at least one Ontario condominium case that has followed the above principles.

Summary To summarize, the owner of the unit above (where the source of the damage originated), who fails to repair the source of the leak in his/her unit, that causes damage to his/her unit, as well as the unit below, is responsible for the following costs: 1) The repairs to his/her unit up to the deductible amount set out in the Corporation’s insurance policy. If damage was caused by an uninsured peril, the owner’s liability for costs to repair his/her unit is essentially unlimited.

2) If the Corporation has an insurance deductible by-law that makes the owner above liable for damage to the common elements and other units, the owner above could be held responsible for repair costs to the unit below, up to the deductible.

3) Both the owners of the unit above and the unit below are responsible for damage to their respective improvements and contents.

However, the owner of the unit below may claim indemnity for this additional loss if the owner above or the Corporation caused the damage by an act or omission. ■

WHAT IS “REASONABLE”?

Examining Common Expense Collection Post-Jaworowski

BY BRIAN HORLICK, B.COMM., B.CL., LL.B., ACCI HORLICK LEVITT DI LELLA LLP arlier this year, the Superior Court of Justice released its decision in Peel Condomin-ium Corp.

No. 452 v. Jaworowski. In that case, the corporation was seeking possession of Mr. Jaworowski’s unit so that it could sell same pursuant to a lien that it had registered for arrears of common expenses on the unit.

E

Alternatively, the corporation sought an order that Mr. Jaworowski pay the amount that the corporation was claiming pursuant to the lien.

Mr. Jaworowski, for his part, disputed that he was responsible for interest on the arrears or for the corporation’s costs incurred in pursuit of the arrears.

The Lien

At the heart of this dispute was the wording of section 85 of the Condominium Act, 1998, which, among other things, gives a condominium corporation its lien right against the owner’s unit in the event of the owner’s default in his or her obligation to contribute to the common expenses. Subsection 85(1) provides that, in such event, “the corporation has a lien against the owner’s unit and its appurtenant common interest for the unpaid amount together with all interest owing and all reasonable legal costs and reasonable expenses incurred by

the corporation in connection with the collection or attempted collection of the unpaid amount” [emphasis added].

In Jaworowski, the unit owner fell into substantial arrears of the common expenses payable for his unit. As a result, the corporation registered a lien

ration brought this action. As part of the amount secured by the lien, the corporation sought its costs incurred in defending the Small Claims Court action, on the basis that these were costs incurred in connection with the collection or attempted collection of unpaid common expenses.

‘The Small Claims Court dismissed Mr. Jaworowski’s claim, and awarded costs of $500 to the condominium corporation.’ against the unit for the arrears, plus accruing interest and legal fees. After the lien was registered, Mr. Jaworowski brought a claim in the Small Claims Court, in which he admitted that he owed the common expense arrears but maintained that he should not be responsible to pay any amount on account of interest or legal fees.

The Small Claims Court dismissed Mr. Jaworowski’s claim, and awarded costs of $500 to the condominium corporation. In so doing, the deputy judge noted that the corporation’s costs were much higher than $500, but he felt that he could not award any higher amount in costs. After the conclusion of the Small Claims Court action, the corpo-

“Reasonable Costs” At trial, the court accepted that the lien had been validly placed, and that the legal fees incurred both in the Small Claims Court action and in this action were incurred in the course of collecting or attempting to collect the unpaid common expenses. (As an aside, it should be noted that this decision marks the first time, to the author’s knowledge, that a court in Ontario has allowed a condominium corporation to recover its legal fees incurred in this type of Small Claims Court action beyond whatever costs award was made by the Small Claims Court at the time.)

Continued on page 22

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

21

The question was whether these legal fees were reasonable within the meaning of subsection 85(1) of the Act. The corporation claimed that it had incurred $22,570.22 in legal costs (including fees, taxes and disbursements) in the course of successfully defending the Small Claims Court action, and $55,758.94 in legal costs (including fees, taxes and disbursements) in the

course of its pursuit of the unpaid common expenses, including this action.

This total, being $78,329.16, was substantially greater than the common expense arrears plus interest, which amounted to no more than $12,000.00.

The court accepted that the corporation was entitled to reasonable costs but held that it maintained the discretion to

determine what “reasonable” was. In considering this question, the court held that the question of proportionality was relevant to making a determination on costs. In this case, the amount sought in costs was 6 ½ times higher than the arrears plus interest in pursuit of which those costs were expended. The court held that counsel for the plaintiff had “over resourced” this case, and that the costs claimed were not proportionate and, therefore, not reasonable.

Accordingly, the court awarded costs of $4,619.04 (all-inclusive) in respect of the Small Claims Court action, and $20,387.24 (all-inclusive) in respect of this action, for a total of $25,006.28.

This total represented a reduction of $53,322.88, or more than 68%.

The Perils of Proportionality

On its face, the court’s decision in Jaworowski makes a certain amount of sense; spending more than $78,000 to collect approximately $12,000 seems, at first blush, somewhat outlandish.

From that standpoint, the court’s decision to award the costs that were awarded seems “reasonable”.

However, what should give condominium corporations pause is the fact that the court explicitly tied proportionality to its analysis of whether the legal fees and costs claimed were reasonable. The reason that this should give corporations pause is the court assessed the proportionality of the costs not just by comparing them to the work done by the corporation’s lawyers, but also to the common expense arrears that the corporation sought to recover.

The potential pitfalls inherent in this approach are both numerous and obvious. For one, it could be viewed as highly prejudicial toward condominium corporations that have relatively low common expenses, such as townhouse or vacant land condominium corporations. Many of these types of corporations have per-unit common expenses of $50-$60 per month or less; applying a Jaworowski-style proportionality analysis to the costs incurred by the corporation in collecting this 22

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

scale of arrears would completely ignore the fact that the costs of pursuing these arrears would be roughly the same as they would be for a condominium corporation with per-unit arrears of

er will lead a board of directors to take a passive approach with respect to the collection of common expense arrears.

One could easily foresee an apprehensive board of directors deciding to sim-

‘One could easily foresee an apprehensive board of directors deciding to simply register liens on units in arrears and then allowing the liens to remain in place until the units are sold or refinanced.’ $500 per month. In other words, the fact that the amount owing is much less will not mean that the costs associated with pursuing that amount will necessarily be any less.

This leads to a second problem – namely, that the fear of incurring costs that the corporation won’t be able to recov-

ply register liens on units in arrears and then allowing the liens to remain in place until the units are sold or refinanced. This, in effect, could cause the business of the condominium corporation to grind to a halt, as it would be left without income from those units whose owners chose to take advantage of such a passive collection policy.

This is both practically unworkable and problematic, given the board’s obligation to act in the best interest of the condominium corporation.

Thirdly, a result such as that in Jaworowski seems inherently unfair. It is trite, but nonetheless true, to say that common expenses are the “life blood” of a condominium corporation. As such, in the ordinary course any monies that the corporation expends are drawn from a pool that is proportionally contributed to by each owner.

However, the scheme of the Act is clear that in matters such as this – where one owner has defaulted in his obligation under the Act – the costs incurred by the corporation as a result of that default are to be borne by that unit owner alone. By deciding as it did in Jaworowski, the court essentially determined that each unit owner should bear Continued on page 25

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

23

a portion of the costs incurred by the corporation as a result of Mr. Jaworowski’s failure to pay his common expenses, as the difference between the corporation’s actual costs and the costs it was awarded would have to be made up out of the corporation’s operating fund.

It appears, based on the numbers involved, that each unit’s common expenses in Jaworowski were in the neighbourhood of $400-$450 per month.

However, what if Mr. Jaworowski had owned a townhouse in a 30-unit condominium corporation with per-unit common expenses of $50 per month? The $53,000-plus difference between the corporation’s actual costs and the costs that the court awarded would amount to nearly three years’ common expenses for the entire corporation. In that case, would the court have ordered each unit owner to pay the equivalent of 35 months’ common expenses for one unit owner’s default?

Is that proportional?

What Can Condominium Corporations Do?

After considering all of the foregoing, one would be forgiven for thinking that the answer to the question above is “not much”. After all, if the corporation’s costs incurred in the course of enforcing a lien are going to be subject to drastic reduction by the court, isn’t the corporation playing with fire by incurring those costs? Indeed, this would seem to be the epitome of a no-win situation.

However, all is not lost. For one, it is very rare for a lien dispute to proceed to court, and it is reasonable to expect that the bulk of the costs incurred by the corporation in Jaworowski were incurred in the course of the litigation itself and not necessarily in connection with the initial lien enforcement steps.

For another, the court did not make its decision with respect to costs entirely based on the proportionality of those

costs as compared to the amount sought. The court also commented, as noted above, on what it described as the “over resourc[ing]” of the file by counsel for the corporation. It seems reasonable to suggest that this over resourcing (such as it was), in addition to increasing the costs for the corporation, also did not present well when the corporation was arguing that its costs were reasonable. If so, the lesson would appear to be that, in situations where the court has discretion to essentially do what it perceives to be the right thing, optics count.

At the end of the day, though, all condominium corporations can really do is be aware of these risks. Corporations, and their boards, have an obligation to enforce collection of common expenses, and that obligation is not diminished by the court’s decision in Jaworowski.

All corporations and boards can do is ensure, as best they can, that that obligation is carried out in a prudent and intelligent manner. ■

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

25

26

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

Sidewalk Snow/Ice Removal Responsibilities

BY J. ROBERT GARDINER, B.A. LL.B., ACCI, FCCI

GARDINER MILLER ARNOLD LLP

pedestrian fell on an icy sidewalk in front of a store in Perth, Ontario and sued the store operator, the building owner and the municipality. The pedestrian argued that the store should be held liable because its employee had shoveled the snow creating a hazard when snow melted onto the sidewalk. The pedestrian’s case against the store operator was disallowed because the municipality was the owner and occupier of the sidewalk.

A

The court held that the municipality was liable for payment of damages to the injured pedestrian because of failure to clear the snow and ice. The store operator’s acts to clear the sidewalk to allow customers access to its store did not relieve the municipality of its duty.

The store operator never assumed control of the sidewalk and did not pile snow in such a manner as to constitute a hazard. If snow melted onto the sidewalk, it was still the municipality’s responsibility to clear the sidewalk.

Even if water dripped from the building, it was the landlord who was responsible for any damage or injuries caused by leaks from the roof of the building, not the store operator.

In that case, the township’s snow removal by-law was in effect requiring

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

27

that a building owner or occupant must clear snow and ice from the sidewalk adjacent to a building. Surprisingly, after reviewing several precedent cases, the judge confirmed that while a property owner has a duty to ensure that his or her own property is maintained in a reasonable condition so that persons entering the property are not injured, the property owner would be free from civil liability to pay damages for injuries suffered by a pedestrian arising from the property owner’s failure to maintain or remove snow or ice from municipally-owned streets and sidewalks. An adjacent property owner in breach of a municipal snow removal by-law would, however, be liable for payment of the applicable fine referred to in the by-law.

The municipality, not the adjacent property owner, is legally responsible for snow and ice accumulating on public sidewalks and potholes on the street in front of a house, unless special circum-

28

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

‘As occupier of its common elements, a condominium corporation is obligated to promptly undertake snow removal from its common element sidewalks, laneways and condominium streets within a reasonable time.’ stances confirm that the property owner had assumed control of the sidewalk, or if the sidewalk is exclusively used to access the person’s property, or if the property owner failed to take due care to prevent conditions or activities on his property flowing onto the sidewalk which were the cause of an injury to a pedestrian. A person who creates a dangerous condition upon his property

which he knew or ought to have known could cause injury to pedestrians using the sidewalk could be liable under the common law concepts applicable to a nuisance or negligence claim.

A person injured on municipal property such as a sidewalk or roadway only has a special limitation period of ten days after suffering the injury or damage within which to give written notice

specifying the nature of the claim against the municipality.

Although the Perth slip-and-fall case did not involve a condominium corporation’s common elements, it exemplifies the general principles applicable to an “occupier’s liability” claim in a slipand-fall scenario. In condo world, even though the common elements are owned by the unit owners in accordance with the common interests appurtenant to their units, s. 26 of the Condominium Act, 1998 provides that the condominium corporation is deemed to be the occupier of the common elements and it normally has the duty to maintain and repair them (unless the declaration requires the owner to do so).

within a reasonable time. If the municipality’s snow/ice removal by-law requires adjacent property owners to clear municipal sidewalks, make sure that your condominium corporation’s snow removal contract requires the contractor to comply with municipal by-law requirements, such as those discussed below.

The Corporation’s snow removal contract should also contain a number of other protective provisions requiring

prompt and efficient snow and ice removal or sanding and “salting” of ice with environmentally-preferred products, so as to protect the Corporation from various types of liability. Often, the Corporation’s lawyer can build in 5-15 types of legal protections which most condominium corporations typically fail to negotiate. Obtain a WSIB Clearance Certificate. Review the contractor’s insurance policy and the Corporation’s own insurance policy for Continued on page 31

Section 3 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act provides that an occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to ensure that persons entering on the premises, and any item brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.

An “occupier” is defined as a person who is in physical possession of premises or who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities carried on upon the premises, or who has control over persons allowed to enter the premises. In other words, the condominium corporation, its directors and its property manager could each be held liable in the event of an occupier’s liability claim.

Of course, s. 117 of the Condominium Act, 1998 provides that no person shall permit a condition to exist or carry on an activity in a unit or in the common elements if the condition or the activity is likely to damage the property or cause injury to an individual.

As occupier of its common elements, a condominium corporation is obligated to promptly undertake snow removal from its common element sidewalks, laneways and condominium streets

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

29

‘…if the City of Toronto has passed a particular policy undertaking the responsibility to clear away and remove the snow and ice from the sidewalks adjoining a specified property, then the property owner or occupant is exempt from this responsibility.’ slip and fall types of liability claims and make sure that immediate notice is given to the insurer in the event of any significant claim.

The sidewalk snow/ice removal provisions contained in the applicable bylaw in your condominium’s municipality are likely very similar to the provisions contained in the City of Toronto’s Municipal Code, Section 719.

Toronto’s Code assigns to the building owner or occupant the responsibility to remove snow and ice from any municipal sidewalk which is on a municipal highway (including any public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, etc.) which is located in front of, alongside or to the rear of a privately owned building.

The owner or occupant must clear away and completely remove the snow and ice within 12 hours after the snowfall or rain has ceased. One should expect that Toronto would deem the condominium corporation to be the “owner or occupant” of the building; a “building” includes the lands and premises appurtenant to the building. However, if the City of Toronto has passed a particular policy undertaking the responsibility to clear away and remove the snow and ice from the sidewalks adjoining a specified property, then the property owner or occupant is exempt from this responsibility.

If the sidewalk becomes slippery from any cause, Toronto’s Code holds the

owner or occupant of the adjacent building responsible to immediately, and as often as necessary, ensure that the slippery surface is covered by ashes, sand, salt or environmentally-preferred alternatives. The City may clear the snow or ice or remedy a slippery sidewalk at the cost of the building owner who has failed to do so within the 12hour deadline.

Toronto’s Code also requires a building owner or occupant to remove any snow or ice that accumulates on any part of the owner’s building which poses a danger to the public using a highway, sidewalk or lane. During the ice or snow removal process, the property owner or occupant must take proper care and precaution for the warning and safety of the public using the sidewalk or highway. No one may move snow or ice from private property to a highway, sidewalk or lane. Violators of the above provisions of Toronto’s Code are guilty of an offence and liable for a fine under the Provincial Offences Act. It is a good bet that your municipality will have enacted a sidewalk snow/ice removal by-law containing similar provisions, subjecting your condominium to an offence and fine upon violation. If a slip-and-fall injury arises, make sure you give notice to the condominium corporation’s insurer and to the snow removal contractor, requiring the contractor to give notice to its insurer of any such slip-and-fall scenario. ■

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

31

CCI Events

CCI-Toronto Hosts Mayoral Forum he Canadian Condominium Institute - Toronto & Area Chapter hosted its first-ever political forum on September 30, 2010 for candidates in the Toronto election for mayor. The forum, in which the then front-running mayoral candidates participated, attracted a mixed crowd of concerned condominium owners and city media. The participating candidates were Rob Ford, Joe Pantalone, Rocco Rossi and George Smitherman. Mr. Smitherman arrived late due to unforeseen circumstances and was not able to respond to all predetermined questions.

T

The intent of the forum was to expose candidates to issues relevant to the Toronto condominium community and to determine candidates’ positions on those issues. In preparation CCI-T members were invited to send in questions to which they wanted answers.

The Government Relations Committee had pre-identified some questions as well.

Armand Conant, CCI-T President, moderated the forum. Candidates each made an opening statement, after which Mr. Conant posed five questions on issues important to the condominium community. In his opening statement, Mr. Ford reiterated his primary campaign pledge to “stop the gravy train”.

He also promised to abolish the car registration tax and the land transfer tax.

Mr. Pantalone’s primary pledge was to protect what is good about Toronto; he promised to continue with Transit City and to freeze residential taxes for 4 years for home-owning seniors with family incomes below $50,000 annually, noting this would affect condo own32

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

L-R: Rob Ford, Joe Pantalone, Rocco Rossi

ers as well. Mr. Rossi’s three priorities were to “fix City finances”, get transit and transportation in general moving again, and create jobs. Each candidate had an opportunity to respond to all five questions, and the floor was then opened to questions from the audience.

The five questions answered by all candidates were:

1. What would candidates do to address the inequity in property taxation rates between condominiums and single-family homes? Condominiums are taxed at the same rate, even though they use proportionally less municipal services.

Mr. Pantalone said he supported a separate property tax classification for condominiums and would approach the Province on this issue within two years of receiving a mandate. Mr. Ford said he would do whatever was in his power as Mayor to ask the provincial government to adopt a separate classification for condos but noted there was no guarantee the Province would act. Mr. Rossi, while recognizing the inequity, pointed out that, with 20% of Toronto residents living in condominiums, changing the rate for them would create a shortfall in City revenues. He will look into the issue but, with the high tax burden borne by commercial property owners keeping residential taxes lower, did not promise to ask the Province for a change.

2. Condominiums face a very high waste levy, even if they do not use municipal services. How would candidates address this?

Mr. Rossi said he stood “four-square with condos” on the issue of the waste levy. He said he would implement a hiring freeze in areas like waste collection, opening up routes for competitive bidding with the City being one of the bidders. Mr. Ford also supported privatizing waste collection, saying estimated savings City-wide for this privatizing were conservatively $15 to $20 million. Mr. Pantalone pledged to review the issue and act accordingly. He cautioned against a “race to the bottom” in wages and benefits.

3. What would candidates do to encourage green development of condominiums – new and old?

Mr. Ford professed himself in favour of green buildings, but declined to force

developers to build them.

Mr. Pantalone does not support a two-tier structure for development fees, but would put green buildings at the head of the line for approval. Mr. Rossi said he would work with the Province to ensure standards were brought up to an efficient level, but said the City on its own could not create incentives.

Pantalone and Mr. Smitherman said that section 37 exceptions were good as they were expected to help the community. Mr. Smitherman also advocated empowering neighbourhoods on this issue. Mr. Rossi stated that Toronto needed to give the chief planner greater clout and needed to take advantage of the scheduled 2011 official plan review to make our plan clearer and more competitive with those of other major North American cities. Mr. Ford character-

the high cost of infrastructure and the large proportion of maintenance fees that go to fund utilities, why aren’t developers forced to build green buildings. Mr. Pantalone, mentioning that the City could require buildings needing plan or zoning amendments to use the greenest possible technologies, said he wants the Province to give Toronto the authority to force greener buildings for all new developments.

Mr. Smitherman cited the Green Energy and Economy Act, passed by the Province during his tenure as Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, as part of the solution; he particularly noted the co-generation component of the Act as a way condos could recoup the cost of retrofits. Mr. Ford flatly opposed forcing green buildings, citing the high ini-

Rob Ford

L-R: George Smitherman, Mario Deo

4. How do candidates’ transit and transportation plans address the traffic congestion created by the proliferation of condominiums across the city and in the suburbs, and the shifting of jobs to the suburbs?

On the issue of transit and transportation, Mr. Ford said he would focus on reducing vehicular traffic by building subways, a project he felt could be completed affordably, without new taxes or tolls, within three to four years.

Mr. Pantalone restated his support for the Transit City plan. Mr. Rossi promoted his “Transit City Plus” plan, and identified the need for a multi-year transit plan rather than approaching one year at a time.

5. What do candidates propose to counter the circumventing of the planning process by the practice of developers offering section 37 funding for post-approval planning changes?

When asked about renegotiation of development plans and the role of section 37 money in particular, both Mr.

ized additional section 37 funding requests as “extortion” and said that he had successfully conducted negotiations with developers to a “happy medium” without pushing section 37 funding.

In response to an audience question on the issue of illegal rooming houses, particularly those operating in condominiums, Mr. Ford said he favoured strict enforcement of the by-laws and the closing down of illegal rooming houses. Mr. Pantalone noted the City had to prove homes were being used as rooming houses and pledged to work with City Councillors and CCI on this issue. Mr. Smitherman would also work with CCI to try and resolve the issue, saying there was a lack of clarity between the Province and the City.

tial costs and slow pay-back periods.

Asked about working with CCI on condominium issues, Mr. Smitherman, Mr. Ford and Mr. Pantalone expressed willingness to do so.

Overall, the forum was successful and Mr. Conant thanked those who came out for their thoughtful questions and support of the condominium community. Referring to the pending provincial election, he encouraged members to remain engaged and to bring condominium issues to the provincial stage.

He also said that CCI remains committed to advancing action on concerns such as the HST and a new Condominium Act. ■

An audience member asked that, given

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

33

he 14th Annual CCI/ACMO Joint Condominium Conference was held on November 5th and 6th at the Markham Hilton Suites Hotel. From all accounts and as evidenced by the high turnout, the conference was a huge success!

T Left to Right: Ryan Lock; Larry Holmes; CCI-T President, Armand Conant; Deputy Minister, George Ross; ACMO President, Chris Antipas; Brian Horlick; Gordon Chong and Dean McCabe.

ACMO President and Conference Chair, Chris Antipas, welcomes delegates to the 14th Annual Condominium Conference.

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

34

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

The conference kick off took place on the morning of November 5th with Mr. George Ross, the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Business and Consumer Services presenting welcoming remarks. On behalf of the Ministry Mr. Ross provided an update from the Ministry with specific references to the HST. The crowd of delegates were eager to hear his message and to commence two days of networking, learning and visiting suppliers on the trade show floor. This year’s theme of “Directions for a New Decade: Staying Ahead of the Curve” provided a look into the future with such session topics as: “Rapid Fire Update of Legislation That Affects Condos – What Was, What Is and What Might Be”, “The Move to High Performance Buildings” and “Building Responsible Digital Communities”. In all, there were fifteen sessions and learning opportunities spread over the two-day period including the ever-popular Round Table Discussion tables first introduced at the 2008 conference. The presentation on early Saturday morning by Retired Major

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

CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS General Lewis McKenzie was perhaps the overall highlight of the conference, as he inspired delegates with leadership wisdom. We extend our sincere appreciation to the 68 speakers and moderators who participated this year and to all of the committee members from both ACMO and CCI who contributed countless volunteer hours planning to ensure the success of the annual conference.

The wrap-up luncheon and closing session: “Condo Law Update Supersession” once again provided the traditional ‘grande finale’ of the conference and it was a huge hit! Congratulations and thanks to moderators Tasso Eracles and John Oakes for a job very well done.

An integral part of the conference is the trade show. Over ninety exhibitors were on hand this year to display a wide array of products and services and their support of the industry is well noted and appreciated. In case you missed any of them, be sure to check the conference website at www.condoconference.ca for a full list of exhibitors along with their contact information.

CCI-T President, Armand Conant and ACMO President, Chris Antipas, present Deputy Minister, George Ross with a working draft of the Legislative Brief.

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

Mark your calendars now for next year’s conference taking place on Friday, November 4th, and Saturday, November 5th, 2011 at our new venue the Toronto Congress Center on Dixon Road.

The move to new facilities will allow for the continued growth and expansion of the conference and trade show. We hope to see you there!

Presenters Rob Giesbrecht, Debbie Bellinger and Brian Horlick at the Closing Legal Supersession.

Keynote Presenter (Retired) Major General Lewis McKenzie.

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

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

35

Condo Energy Retrofit Projects Celebrated

BY MURRAY JOHNSON, R.C.M. BROOKFIELD RESIDENTIAL SERVICES LTD.

n September 8, 2010 a celebration of the achievements of twenty-seven condominium corporations took place to recognize energy retrofit projects leading to greenhouse gas reductions. This exciting celebration was co-hosted by the Better Buildings Partnership program in the City of Toronto and Brookfield Residential Services.

O

Through the support of Vic DaRosa, Director of the Education and MultiResidential sectors at the Better Buildings Partnership Program (BBP), Mayor David Miller and City Council signed certificates recognizing twentyseven Brookfield clients for their achievements in greenhouse emissions and energy consumption. All of these condominium corporations were successful in receiving approved incentives from the BBP, program to assist with the cost of the projects. Roop Mone, Chief Engineer of the BBP, co-presented with Vic DaRosa each of the corporations with their certificates.

This special event recognized the strong and often difficult decisions that the directors of these corporations had to make as they embarked on their journey of energy reduction. It is referred to as a journey because it is not a finite decision to reduce energy through a single project but rather the adoption of a mindset that is open to the next technological improvement that will further

the efficiencies of the corporation’s financial position, as well as supporting the health of the planet we all share.

One might say this is simply being a good corporate, good municipal, good global and good fiscal neighbor.

This special event recognized the strong and often difficult decisions that the directors of these corporations had to make as they embarked on their journey of energy reduction.

The meeting held a number of very pleasant surprises for everyone in attendance. The City of Toronto also presented Brookfield Residential Services Ltd. with a certificate recognizing them as the leader in promoting energy and greenhouse gas reductions in the condominium sector for the GTA. John Oakes, President and CEO of Brookfield graciously accepted the cer-

tificate on behalf of the firm. As part of his acceptance speech John challenged all managers and directors to continue with the energy retrofits and to expand beyond the experimental stages already set, quantified and being celebrated.

David Tyrrell, Vice President and Chief Conservation Officer for Toronto Hydro, spoke at the event and was able for the first time in public to share some insight into the new three-tiered incentive programs that will be in place in the new year. It was also a pleasant surprise to hear that the City, presumably through some connotation of the BBP, will continue to be a strategic partner in the provincial incentive program.

Chris noted that the incentive program is not a “cash cow” but rather a facilitator towards efficiencies in the energy sector and a venue to meet the global targets for greenhouse emission reductions.

I also had an opportunity to speak at the event and to share some of the tools that were used in the energy retrofits. Induction lighting, LED options, T8 and T5 fluorescent lighting, chiller upgrades and proper HVAC sizing, high efficiency boilers, variable speed drives on air handlers and intermittent pumping. All were presented and discussed in layman’s terms. Did you know that a pump running 24/7 consumes between $750 Continued on page 41

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

37

Ghacan Services (CONDOMINIUM ACCOUNTING SERVICES GROUP)

Looking for Accounting service for your Self-Managed Condominium? Then Ghacan Services is your choice.

Over 23 years in the industry, our experience enables us to provide excellent condominium accounting services to Property Managers and/or Self-Managed Condominiums.

At Ghacan we strive to perpetuate an attitude of “Do It Right The First Time�

Call us at 416-435-4946 or e-mail us at info@ghacan.com. or visit us at www.ghacan.com

38

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

and $1,000 per year, per horsepower in electricity? No wonder intermittent pumping has become the new norm.

Air make-up units can consume up to 60 percent of a building’s natural gas usage and all in a single season.

Installing variable speed drives on these units solves that problem.

Canadian Home Plumbing challenged our firm to reduce water consumption in our portfolio by a quarter of a billion liters in the coming year and I was glad to accept that challenge of behalf of the managers and our clients. We will be promoting and monitoring our progress during the year.

Armand Conant, President of the Toronto Chapter of the Canadian Condominium Institute, was the final speaker at the event and he promised to challenge CCI-Toronto condominiums to continue energy reduction efforts across the province. Armand noted that while we were here to celebrate the BBP, Brookfield and Condominium Client successes, these successes needed to spread to the entire condominium sector across Ontario. ■

Key Facts 27 Condominium Corporations 31 Energy Reduction Projects $3,283,068.00 Total Project Costs $738,016.00 Total Annual Hydro Savings $631,661.00 Total BBP Incentives Received 7,533 tons of CO2 Reduction Annually 1,507 Cars Removed From the Road Annually When you combine natural gas and water savings across the same projects…

27 Condominium Corporations 31 Energy Reduction Projects $1,336,477.00 Total Annual Utility Savings 123,199 tons of CO2 Reduction Annually 407,339 Cars Removed From The Road Annually

Water Challenge One quarter of a billion liters is 250,000,000 liters A water bottle typically holds 500 ml 250,000,000 liters is 500,000,000 water bottles An average water bottle is 20 cm high.

500,000,000 water bottles is 100,000 kilometers 100,000 kilometers is two and a half times around the globe.

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

39

We are delighted to announce that Lisa Kay has joined JCO & Associates on October 18, 2010 in the position of Sales and Marketing Manager.

Lisa has serviced the condominium industry for the last seven years in a finance and marketing capacity and understands condominiums well. She is a director for the Canadian Condominium Institute (CCI) and sits on the associates committee of the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario (ACMO). Lisa was awarded ACMO Associate of the Year for 2007 and 2009 and has recently been awarded the designation“Distinguished Services Award”CCI (Hons) in recognition of her extraordinary service to the condominium industry.

Lisa’s success in sales and marketing and her commitment to the condo industry will further enhance JCO’s focus to service our current and future condominium clients.

CONTACT INFORMATION: JCO & Associates 56 Cedarview Drive, Toronto, Ontario M1C 2K6 Tel: 416.741.4416 | Cell: 416.529.5078 Email: lisakay@jcoandassociates.com Web Site: www.jcoandassociates.com

40

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

Members’ Corner Bill Thompson Receives FCCI Designation Long-time CCI-Toronto member and current CCI-Toronto Vice President, Bill Thompson, received the distinguished honour of receiving his FCCI designation at the CCI National Awards Dinner held on Friday November 5th, 2010 at the Markham Hilton Suites Hotel.

Bill Thompson has been in the property management industry since 1985. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree from York University. In his career he has held positions ranging from Property Manager to Vice-President to President at three different management companies. Bill is currently the President of Malvern Condominium Property Management, which is an “ACMO 2000 Certified Company” that has exclusively managed Condomin-iums since 1972.

Bill served on the Board of Directors of the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario for three years and

has been an active member on many of its committees. He was amongst the first to attain his R.C.M. designation in 1988. Bill instructed the Administration Course in the Humber College Property Management course for two semesters and has been a guest speaker at many condominium industry conferences and CCI courses. Bill attained his ACCI designation from the Canadian Condominium Institute in June 2000.

He currently sits on the Toronto Board of Directors where he serves as the Education Chair and Vice President. Bill also currently serves on the Executive Board of CCI National.

Bill Thompson receives his FCCI award from CCI-National President, Janice Pynn (left) and CCI-Toronto President, Armand Conant (right).

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

Henry Jansen Receives ACCI Designation Congratulations go out to Henry Jansen for earning his ACCI Designation in Engineering. This designation was presented to Henry at the CCI National Annual General Meeting held on Friday November 5th, 2010 at the Markham Hilton Suites Hotel.

Henry Jansen receives his ACCI certificate from CCI-National President, Janice Pynn.

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

41

Members’ Corner cont’d Henry is the President of Criterium Jansen Engineering, a national engineering firm representing local needs.

The firm specializes in reserve fund studies, performance audits, Tarion Builder Bulletin 19 reports and Physical Needs Assessments. He has been a member of the CCI-Toronto Chapter since January 2008 and currently serves on the Chapter Membership Committee.

Michael Pascu Receives ACCI Designation Congratulations are also extended to Michael Pascu for earning his ACCI Designation in Law. This designation was presented to Michael at the CCI National Annual General Meeting held on Friday November 5th, 2010 at the Markham Hilton Suites Hotel.

Michael is a lawyer with the firm of Fine and Deo Barristers and Solicitors in Vaughan, ON. Michael has been a member of the CCI Toronto Chapter since February 2005. Michael has been

42

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

a contributor to the CondoVoice magazine and is a current member of the Chapter’s Education Committee.

energy retrofits. Lisa is a director of Toronto CCI and is a frequent speaker at CCI seminars and the CCI-T/ACMO Conference. Lisa is also a regular facilitator at semi-annual CCI-Toronto Networking Dinners for Condo Board Members and she sits on the ACMO Associates Committee where she was awarded the distinction of “Associate of the Year” for 2007 and 2009. The Toronto Chapter sends congratulations to Lisa on being honoured with the CCI “Distinguished Service Award”.

Michael Pascu receives his ACCI certificate from CCI-National President, Janice Pynn.

Lisa Kay Receives Distinguished Service Award Lisa Kay is the Manager of Sales and Marketing for JCO & Associates. Lisa has worked in the area of finance and marketing for 20 years and has been engaged in the condo industry for the last 7 years. She has been involved with many condo boards and unit owners to help orchestrate loans for repairs and

Lisa Kay receives her Distinguished Service Award from CCI-National President, Janice Pynn (left) and CCI-Toronto President, Armand Conant (right).

44

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

New Members

CCI-Toronto Welcomes the Following New Members Individual Members C. Paquin B. Woodman A. Sulek

Corporate Members MCC # 0011

MTCC # 0767 PSCC # 0871 PSCC # 0881

PSCC # 0884

PSCC # 0886

TSCC # 2037 TSCC # 2057 TSCC # 2058 TSCC # 2086 TSCC # 2089 TSCC # 2097 YCC # 0162

YCC # 0291 YCC # 0356 YCC # 0359 YCC # 0397

YRCECC # 1170 YRSCC # 1178 YRSCC # 1182

Professional Members

Jennifer Bell Placet Dispute Resolution

Bert Berger CityTowers Property Management Inc. Paul Endres Endres & Associates Jonathan Juffs AME - Materials Engineering

Georgio Kosmidis Arthex Property Management (1983) Inc. George Shalamay CityTowers Property Management Inc.

Brian Shedden GRG Building Consultants Inc. Michael Teys Teys Lawyers Pty Ltd.

New Trade Members

ASG Security Group Ltd. Matthew Williams

Dryit.ca/Fresh and Clean James Lee Senter

Earl’s Lock and Door Service Ltd. Brian Middleton KRIJOH Inc. Beth Todi

MD Renovation Property Maintenance Mike Dincov

National Construct-Air Corp.

Rocco Morra Purple Hearts Security Inc Mark Seenarine

Brial Mechanical Inc. Diana Brahaj BuildingLink.com

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

45

46

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

Member News

ACCI Member Profile Henry J. Jansen, P.Eng,ACCI Henry Jansen is the owner and President of Criterium-Jansen Engineers. Mr. Jansen is a licensed Professional Engineer in the province of Ontario. He has over 15 years of engineering experience and is a member of Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO), National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), National Academy of Building Inspection Engineers (NABIE), the Canadian Condominium Institute (CCI) and is an accredited member of the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario (ACMO).

Mr. Jansen has a wide range of overall building system knowledge and experience. His specific areas of expertise include inspections on pre-owned homes, new construction, townhouses and condominiums, apartment buildings, commercial and industrial buildings. He is also Tarion-approved as a field consultant for Builder Bulletin 19 inspections.

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

47

CLOTHES DRYER FIRE PREVENTION

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

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

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

48

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

CCI National News

CCI National Appoints Jim Mackenzie as New President Jim MacKenzie, MBA, DAA, FCIP (Hons) has been appointed President of the Canadian Condominium Institute as of November 5, 2010.

Jim is the immediate Past President of the South Saskatchewan Chapter of CCI, served as its President from 2006 to 2010, and as its representative on the CCI National Board of Directors from 2005 to 2009. He has served on the National Executive since 2007.

Jim has been an insurance broker since 1990 and has been at his current position with Dusyk & Barlow Insurance Brokers Ltd. in Regina since 1994. He earned his Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Regina in 2005 and an undergraduate associate diploma in administration in 2002. He also holds his Chartered Insurance Professional (CIP) and Fellow Chartered Insurance Professional (FCIP) designations from the Insurance Institute of Canada, the latter with honours. He was awarded the Institute’s James Richardson Award as the top national Fellow with a management major in 2005.

Jim believes that his commitment to lifelong learning will serve him well in leading CCI, an organization strongly focused on providing educational opportunities to condominium unit owners, board members, and allied professionals. Working with him toward this goal is a diverse national team of fellow members of the national Executive: CHAIRMAN: Janice Pynn, RCM, ARM, ACCI, FCCI Toronto, ON VICE-PRESIDENT: Geoffrey K. Penney, BA, LL.B., St, John’s, NL

SECRETARY/TREASURER: Peter Harris, CA, ACCI, FCCI, Toronto, ON

MEMBERS AT LARGE: Bill Thompson, BA, RCM, ACCI, Toronto, ON

Kim Coulter, B.Tech (Arch.Sc.), ACCI, Burlington, ON

FCCI,

Douglas G. Steen, Thunder Bay, ON

Douglas J. Forbes, LL.B., Winnipeg, MB

The Canadian Condominium Institute is the Voice of Condominium. This organization is the only national association dealing exclusively with condominium issues affecting all of the participants in the condominium community. The goal of CCI is to form partnerships with its members to create, encourage and promote a strong condominium community in the vibrant Canadian marketplace.

CCI’s role is to educate those involved in condominium, to offer professional assistance to members, to improve legislation affecting condominium in every province, and to develop standards and best practices for condominium directors and professionals. The chapters throughout the country provide practical comparisons to the different provincial Acts and allow CCI to lobby for better reforms as gained from practical experience. CCI assists its members in establishing and operating successful condominium corporations through education, information dissemination, workshops and technical assistance. ■ Winter 2010

thecondovoice

49

50

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

The Noise Issue Knowing What To Do About It (And More) MICHAEL CLIFTON, M.A. LL.B., CLIFTON KOK LLP AND AVRIL LAVALLEE, B.A., LL.B., MCCARTER GREPAN BEYNON THOMPSON LLP Reprinted with permission from the Winter 2006 edition of the CCI-Golden Horseshoe Newsletter

“CONDOMINIUM” is a

form of shared property ownership. In a traditional, or “standard”, condominium, each owner has exclusive title to his or her individual unit and shares ownership with the other owners of the “common elements”. It is the sharing aspect of condominiums that gives rise to both the benefits and the burdens of condominium living. When property is shared, it is necessary to have rules that everyone willingly follows in order to preserve the benefits of owning and occupying the property. The condominium needs to have the means of enforcing rules when a unit occupant doesn't comply. These are all things that the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19, (the “Act”) and the individual condominium’s documents (the declaration, by-laws and rules) put into place. It is the duty of the condominium's Board of Directors to carry out such enforcement.

It is also the responsibility of the Board to manage the affairs of the condominium Continued on page 53

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

51

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

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

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

52

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

generally in a manner that is honest, in good faith, with the care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person (s.

37(1) of the Act). In addition, the Board has a fiduciary duty toward the condominium as a whole.

These principles combine to reinforce the proposition that, when dealing with conflicts which arise between unit owners or occupants, the Board must take a community-centred approach. This

question are located directly one on top of the other and have identical floor plans.

• The condominium building, in general, is constructed such that there are few, if any, noise barriers between units.

• The condominium declaration prohibits unit owners from causing any annoyance to another unit occupant and or disturbing the

always complains. In our view, it is always consistent with the Board's basic fiduciary obligations to the condominium as a whole to investigate, assess and confirm whether a genuine problem exists before refusing or attempting to act upon any claim or complaint.

It should be noted, however, that the provisions in some declarations are worded in ways that make, or appear to

‘…it is sometimes difficult to determine to what extent the nuisance behind a noise complaint is the insensitivity of the noise-producing neighbour or the over-sensitivity of the complainant.’ requires the Board to treat each unit owner and occupant reasonably and with fairness, not making rash decisions, biased assumptions or taking any unwarranted enforcement action against any person. In our view, approaching issues within the condominium in this manner will, in almost all cases, avoid serious and costly legal action and ultimately preserve and strengthen the peace and comforts of condominium living.

Among the most common problems when living in close quarters with other people are the challenges of putting up with necessary noise and silencing inappropriate disturbances. Any sensibly organized condominium will contain clauses in its declaration or rules that prohibit inappropriate noise.

However, it is sometimes difficult to determine to what extent the nuisance behind a noise complaint is the insensitivity of the noise-producing neighbour or the over-sensitivity of the complainant. This determination can be the key to deciding how the Board should deal with the situation.

Consider the following fact scenario…

• The condominium is an apartment-style building. The units in

comfort or enjoyment of another unit occupant. It also specifically provides that it is within the discretion of the Board of Directors to determine whether any particular noise is an annoyance.

• An owner complains of noises originating in the unit immediately above. The noises complained of include such things as walking on hardwood floors, opening and closing balcony doors and the sounds of teenage unit occupants wrestling in the common element hallways of the building.

• The complaining owner has made noise complaints about both the current and prior occupants of the unit above citing many of the same concerns.

In this situation, the Board's first step, pursuant to the declaration and in accordance with its fundamental duties and responsibilities, is to make an assessment of the validity of the complaints being made by the owner in the lower unit. That is, the Board should neither be compelled to action simply because a unit owner complains, nor should the Board ignore the issue solely on the basis that the unit owner in question

make, it incumbent upon the Board to respond affirmatively solely on the basis of a unit owner's complaint. In our view, such provisions are not helpful to the Board in respect of managing the condominium in a reasonable and community-centred manner. Indeed, if such provisions were found in the rules of the condominium, rather than in its declaration, it is possible they could be determined to be unreasonable in certain circumstances, which could render such rules unenforceable. Although provisions in a declaration are not held to the same standard of reasonableness as rules, in our view it is still appropriate for Boards to interpret provisions in the declaration in a manner consistent with the Board's fundamental responsibility to conduct themselves fairly and in good faith toward all unit owners and occupants.

Thus, the Board's assessment as to whether any particular noise causes an annoyance or disturbance to another unit occupant should be both objective and reasonable. It should be based on whether the noise can reasonably and in general be considered an annoyance or disturbance to the comfort of other unit occupants, and not solely on whether it is in fact annoying to the unit

Continued on page 54

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

53

‘…it is sometimes difficult to determine to what extent the nuisance behind a noise complaint is the insensitivity of the noise-producing neighbour or the over-sensitivity of the complainant.’ owner lodging the complaint (although this might form part of the basis for taking action).

Considering the scenario set out above, in general noise that is generated within a multi-residence building by usual daily activities and lifestyles, such as walking and/or opening and closing of doors, should not ordinarily or reasonably be considered an annoyance and/or disruptive to others. It is not reasonable, or consistent with the considerations to be expected from a reasonably prudent person, to prohibit ordinary lifestyle and occupancy of a unit or to complain

54

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

of the noises resulting therefrom.

Residents of multi-residence dwellings — which include virtually all condominium complexes — must accept that there will be a certain amount of such noises from their neighbours. Such noises, or any unit owner’s particular sensitivity to them, will usually not form the basis for a reasonable legal claim against a neighbour.

It may be, as in the scenario described above, that the condominium building does not contain sufficient insulation and/or other noise barriers to prevent

the transmission of noise from one unit to the other. However, while this circumstance might ethically impose a higher standard of mutual consideration upon the residents of those units, it should not be the basis on which the Board uses its enforcement powers under the Act to interfere with a unit owner's right to use his/her unit in any usual residential manner.

On the other hand, noises that are not simply incidental to residential usage should be considered by the Board to be an annoyance, nuisance and/or disContinued on page 57

56

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

ruption and result in some sort of positive enforcement action. For example, if the Board makes an investigation of the complaint and discovers that the upper floor unit occupants were in fact making noise by wrestling in the common element hallways, this ought to be considered not to be a usual or appropriate use of the residence. Such noises would be considered a genuine annoyance or disturbance to the lower unit occupants in respect of which the Board should take action.

In this case, it is suggested that the following course of action be taken:

1. The property manager or a Board member should speak to the owner/ occupant of the unit from which the noise emanated. Alternatively, communication could be in writing.

Such communication should explain the need for compliance with the declaration or rules of the condominium and, perhaps, about common neighbourly consideration. Such communication should clearly identify the problem and explain how it affects the other owners and occupants of the condominium, without using aggressive, demeaning or judgmental terms. It should also clearly request that such noises cease. Such communication may be made one or more times depending on the seriousness of the issue and responsive efforts of the offending unit owner or occupants.

2. If such communication fails to obtain compliance, a follow-up letter may be sent by the condominium’s lawyer. This letter should mention that failure to comply may result in a court application or mediation/arbitration proceedings, depending on the issue in question.

(Note that noisy conduct can, in certain extreme cases, be determined to constitute oppressive conduct justifying an application to the court pursuant to section 135 of the Act without first engaging the mediation and arbitration requirements of sections 132 and 134 of the Act.)

It may be appropriate for this letter to warn the unit owner of the potential costs to the owner of such enforcement actions, including the risk that court-ordered costs may be deemed common expenses attributed to the unit that may be the subject of a lien if unpaid.

3. If all the foregoing fails to result in a cessation of the disturbance, then the Board may have no choice but to take steps to move to mediation/arbitration or court proceedings, depending on the issues and the requirements of the Act.

Although the foregoing discussion focuses particularly on dealing with noise, the same principles and procedures are applicable for almost any conflicts that might arise between neighbours on the basis of disturbing (or allegedly disturbing) conduct.

It is to be hoped that the majority of conflicts will never reach step 3 above.

However, this will depend on the nature

of the problem and the sense of community and reasonableness of the parties involved.

Motivational speaker, Jim Rohn, advises: no one can be reasonable and angry at the same time. Usually, reasonable people will acknowledge their role in making their community a successful and enjoyable place to live. When helped to recognize the effects of their actions, such people should be willing to modify their behavior for the benefit of the condominium community at large. The enforcement remedies set out in the Act are intended for those, hopefully rare, circumstances where the parties involved will not.

If the Board consistently seeks to handle conflicts in a fair, reasonable and community-centred manner, we think it likely that in most cases clear, unequivocal and reasonable oral or written notification under step 1 above should be sufficient to correct the problem and also strengthen and maintain the future peace of the community. â–

Seasons Greetings On behalf of everyone at the CCI-Toronto Offices, we wish all of our readers a wonderful Holiday Season and a Healthy, Happy and Successful New Year!

Kindly note that the CCI-Toronto administration offices will be closed for the holidays from December 24th through 31st.

The office will re-open on Monday, January 3rd, 2011.

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

57

Join us on Facebook!

Check Out the CCI Bookstore at

Search for “Canadian Condominium Institute - National Office� Fan Page and become a Fan today!

www.ccitoronto.org

\

Resource material for Condominium Owners, Managers and Boards of Directors

58

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

SUMMA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING

“Your condominium deserves personal attention and service.”

Over 26 years experience.

We provide Professional Condominium Property Management with attention to detail.

Expect Superior Service and a commitment to quality property management.

At Summa we take pride in managing your property.

647-341-7990 propman@summapm.com www.summapm.com

When experience and quality counts!

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

59

Have you renewed your CCI-T Membership for 2010-11?

If not, call our membership department at 416-491-6216 Ext. 241

DONNA SWANSON ACCI, FRI

Real Estate Brokerage

60

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

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

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

Director of Toronto Chapter of REIC

Email: donnaswanson@sympatico.ca

Upcoming Events

Mark Your Calendars Condo 101 Course Dates & Times:

Saturday, January 15th, 2011 from 9:00 a.m. until noon or, Thursday, June 2nd, 2011 from 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m.

Location:

Novotel North York Hotel

Cost:

$95 for CCI Members and $125 for Non Members (plus HST)

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

Level 200 Course Dates & Times:

Saturday, February 26th and Saturday, March 5th, 2011 from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Location:

Novotel North York Hotel

Cost:

$200 for CCI Members and $275 for Non Members (plus HST)

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

Condo 201 Course Dates & Times:

Saturday, March 26th, 2011 from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m.

Location:

Novotel North York Hotel

Cost:

$95 for CCI Members and $125 for Non Members (plus HST)

This half-day course will teach directors all they need to know about proper Governance issues and how to ensure a well functioning Board. This is a ‘must-attend’ session for any new Director or for any owner considering running for a Board position.

Level 300 Course Dates & Times:

Saturday, June 4th and Saturday, June 11th, 2011 from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Location:

Novotel North York Hotel

Cost:

$200 for Members and $275 for Non Members (plus HST)

Completely updated, the Level 300 course is designed for the dedicated condominium director.

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, mediation/arbitration and health and safety/emergency planning matters.

For further course information, to download registration forms or to register online, please visit www.ccitoronto.org/Education

NEW – watch for details coming shortly about our condo courses in webinar format!

Winter 2010

thecondovoice

61

President’s Message Cont’d. a year. The Committee has also tackled many ad hoc issues such as the waste levy and greening of condominiums (energy retrofits).

• Comparison of Condo Legislation Across Canada – On behalf of CCI National (their Government Relations Committee) I was pleased to have prepared the 2nd edition of the condominium primer, in which I compared all the condominium legislation across Canada.

• Mayoral Debate – We were very pleased to have organized and hosted a Mayoral Debate on condominium issues. It was quite a success.

The above are just some examples of the ongoing work of your Chapter. In addition to these, we constantly take on projects such as completely reviewing the governance model for our Chapter and investigating the possibility of the government allowing the pooling of reserve funds Ontario to obtain a better rate of return for all corporations, while protecting the principal and allowing immediate access to the funds as the needs arise.

So you can see that we have accomplished a lot, but there is much, much more to do, and I am confident your Board, under the leadership of the incoming President, will continue this work and as always, work tirelessly on your behalf to see them, and other key initiatives, through to successful implementation.

Finally, I would like to thank you, our members, for your support. It has been a pleasure serving you as President for the past two years, and, as Immediate Past President and a Director, I look forward to continuing to do so into the future.

In closing, I hope you have an enjoyable holiday season and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year.

Cheers,

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

62

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

List of Advertisers A.R. Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 ACMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 Adams & Miles LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 AME Materials Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Atrens Management Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Baird Roofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Ball & Associates Inc. (Floodcheck) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Best Guard Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Brady & Seidner Associates Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Brokers Trust Insurance Group Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Brook Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 Brookfield Residential Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Brown & Beattie Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Carma Industries Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Certified Clean Air (Germguard) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 City of Toronto Energy Efficiency Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 Comfort Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 Construction Control Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Coulter Building Consultants Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 CPL Connoisseur Painting Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 CPL Condominium Design Interiors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 D-Tech (Nexus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Davroc Consulting Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30, 42, 66 Donna Swanson Real Estate Brokerage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Dryerfighters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Elia Associates Barristers and Solicitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 EnerCare Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 Enerplan Building Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Fine & Deo Barristers & Solicitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Firenza Plumbing & Heating Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Fogler, Rubinoff LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Gardiner Miller Arnold LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Genivar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Geofocus Mould Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 Ghacan Services (Condominium Accounting Services Group) . . . . . . . .38 Green Leaf Landscaping and Maintenance Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 GRG Building Consultants Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 GSA Property Management Specialists Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Gulfstar Emergency Services Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Heenan Blaikie LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Horlick Levitt Di Lella LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 ICC Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44, 50 JCO & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 LAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Larlyn Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 M & E Consulting Engineers Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Mareka Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Mediate.ca Resolution Services (Colm Brannigan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Metro Group of Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Miller Thomson LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Morrison Financial Services Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Morrison Hershfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Nadlan-Harris Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Ontario Screen Systems Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Pillar Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Pro-House Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Provident Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Regal Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 Rikos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 Royal Grande Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Samuel Property Management Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 SmithValeriote Law Firm LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 SR Wise Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Stratacon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Summa Property Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Suncorp Valuations Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Toronto Hydro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 TowerWise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 Waste Solutions Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Whiterose Janitorial Service Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Wilson Blanchard Management Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 YARDI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

64

thecondovoice

Winter 2010

EMERGENCY SERVICES INC. CONDOMINIUM • RESIDENTIAL • COMMERCIAL

Your Condominium Emergency Specialist Servicing the GTA 24 / 7

1-800-461-5007 www.gulfstar.ca

66

thecondovoice

Winter 2010