Residential Review of Building Envelope

I don't know whose handwriting is on this form dated April 22, 2008, but it is not mine, and it is not my husband's.

The form I completed and delivered to the strata mailbox on the due date listed many defects besides the deck door issues reported on my list and on the lists of many others. The form I submitted was not in the strata records with the rest of the Residential Review Checklists, or anywhere else I could see.

My checklist included the mildew in window frames and missing flashings also reported by other owners, as well as water taps not extended, and misplaced porch lighting and address numbers.

I found it interesting that unit 405 didn't list water in the stone work as a problem, although unit 206 did.

Unit 514 listed white marks (efflorescence) on the stone facing and a skylight with a broken seal. This was interesting as I had no knowledge of that particular floor plan ever including skylights, and I can only assume that I paid for them without awareness or consent in addition to the extra deck on that unit.

Special levy - strata plan balconies, patios/decks

When owners approved the resolution for the special levy I asked 2 questions, at the meeting, which were both answered prior to the 3/4 vote to approve the funding.

I asked whether the extra decks were included in the levy. The answer was no. The meeting was advised that the scope of work and the special levy for the project covered all of the buildings on the strata plan, including balconies and decks, but it did not include extra decks, or any kind of deck additions at all.

I asked what would happen to the landscaping. The answer was that landscaping would be protected from loss as much as possible and that an adequate budget for landscaping reinstatement was included in the levy.

I asked to amend the resolution to confirm these facts and was told, along with the rest of the owners at the meeting, that those intentions had just been confirmed and that any amendment to the resolution would require that it go back to the lawyer to redraft or approve, all of which would require another meeting and only add to our expense.

It was on the understanding that trees would be preserved as much as possible and the strata would be dealing with the foreseeable issues involving reinstatement of deck additions later on, not in the resolution being voted on that night, that the special levy was approved. I specifically asked about the decks before the 2004 vote because approximately 25% of owners had exclusive use of extra decks, which we had traditionally understood in accordance with our bylaws that council held them responsible for.

New owners can't come in and change the facts in such a way as to further betray and cheat those who paid that special levy. Had painting strata plan decks been excluded and reconstructing extra decks been included, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the resolution would have failed as a result of being significantly unfair. We think this is obvious.

We approved the special levy relying on the understanding that strata plan decks and balconies were equally included in the remediation. In fact, owners with strata plan decks paid pursuant to strata plan unit entitlement formulas in amounts much greater than owners with strata plan balconies, even though the balconies were in much worse condition, and the balcony damage cost so much more to repair, than the strata plan decks.




In 2005, Morrison Hershfield was retained to survey, classify, and evaluate the condition of all of the decks and determined ours to be an unaltered strata plan deck in good condition, except for the paint, which was described as being in "poor" condition.



We have already paid to have our deck painted, and we can't afford to be cheated again. Further to this, when the special levy was approved by the owners they did not contemplate paying for the added expense of extending all of the strata plan decks in order to accommodate a defective door design that significantly changed the use and enjoyment of the limited common property designated for strata plan decks. Had the owners been allowed to vote on such a resolution it would almost certainly have failed.

Covert Secrets and Defamation

On Tuesday, March 9 and Wednesday, March 10, 2010, I took a couple of vacation days from my job, drove to Abbotsford, and reviewed the strata records at the office of Teamwork strata management. This review covered 30% of 6 available boxes and 25% of 2 available drawers. I intend to continue it on Tuesday, March 16. I purchased photocopies of selected records - about 115 on March 9 and 262 on March 10.

I found a series of complaints from other owners about landscaping and decks, but could not, however, find the letter from the anonamous owner referenced in the minutes and requested repeatedly. Nor could I find my various deck requests from over the years or my November 2009 letters to council. The 2003 insurance cover/policy, and the landscape architect's material, which I have been repeatedly requesting for the past several years, were nowhere to be found.

Furthermore, with respect to strata records that I could still not find, Ruth at Teamwork, who was supervising my access to the records, advised me that she had checked Teamwork's storate facility and the missing records were not in it. She said that between half a dozen and a dozen boxes of Sunridge records were at another storage locker, which Mr Mac had the key to, and when the strata records were provided to Teamwork records in that locker, the deck binder being but one example, were not included.

I have been in a position to review the available strata records only once before. That was when Gary Strong was the strata's secretary, and at that time I reviewed the records provided to the him as secretary and the rest of the records with Joan MacDougall at her office.

When I arranged for that previous review I had to wait, because Mr Mac had taken the strata records home after he resigned and did not return them - for either days or weeks - I'm not sure which, and Joan MacDougall, the strata manager, who was sending him blind carbon copies of council email when he was no longer a member, repeatedly obstructed the strata secretay's access to the records at her office - for either weeks or months - I'm not sure which.

Although Joan MacDougall assurred me that all of the strata records had been provided for my review, they were not. Gary Strong reviewed the records to provide them for the strata's leaky condo litigation, and to do his job as the strata secretary, but material records that we had no way of knowing the existence of were withheld from both him and myself.

During my March 2010 review I discovered strata records that I had not seen before, including previously withheld correspondence and certain quotes on landscaping and decks.

**********

It looks like my ability to access strata records has been sabotaged for reasons beyond foiling my attempts to resolve problems and hiding evidence of misconduct. During my review I found out something about why it is no wonder my reputation and credibility seem to have been so badly damaged.

My correspondence was missing from the files while unjustified derogatory comments about me were there instead, such that an impartial person reviewing the strata records could not help but have concerns.

In addition to defamatory actions previously noted, such as the minutes and email from strata manager, Joan MacDougall, advising all the new council members that I was "impossible" to satisfy, a couple of other examples include:

1 - an email in the strata files from councillor, Mae Reid, saying that she had a "stalking" file, which she put my name in. This, when my entire contact with Ms Reid was, and still is, limited to my writing to her twice and her phoning me twice.

In my first contact with Ms Reid I drove to unit 510 and placed in her mailslot the bylaw proposals requested by the strata along with a complaint about a dog in her unit barking constantly from 7 to 7:30 am. She phoned me in response and said that her dog, "Sage", was quiet and that she could muzzle "Annie", the yappy little dog who was doing all the barking.

The second time I contacted Ms Reid I sent a single email to her asking what had set her off when she verbally attacked me and called me a bitch at a hearing before council. She never replied to that email, so I am still waiting for an answer.

My 4th and final contact with Ms Reid was not until years later when she phoned and left a message on my answering machine suggesting that she and her dog were some kind of neighbourhood watch heroes. I did not respond to that call at all.

If Ms Reid thinks my response to her conduct is stalking, then she is acting strangely, to say the least. If she does not think it is stalking, then she is acting maliciously. Either way, Mae, if you are reading this blog, please explain to me how you figure me to be stalking you, how you imagine yourself to be worth stalking, and how many people do you actually have in that file?

*********

2 - defamatory attacks by strata lawyer, Adrienne Murray, including written accusations, made in a very strong voice of authority, that my complaints were "harassment" and "inappropriate" with respect to resolving my concerns - calling my requests for remedies "demands" - all without adequate due diligence in letters Mr Mac attached to the minutes and delivered to the owners.

Having written the letters she did, Ms Murray then admitted to council that she wrote them not knowing (or bothering to find out) if there was merit to the concerns I raised. She told council that the strata corporation may have difficulty explaining to a court why it failed to fully and frankly address my concerns.

Ms Murray's letters are kept in the strata records (permanently I think) and supplemented by her further claim to council that it would cost the strata corporation more to replace our bylaws should I contribute as I did when asked.

Ms Murray, if you are reading this blog, please explain to me how you figure that misrepresentations, errors, and ommisions made by you do less harm to others and cost the strata corporation less than my contributions to the bylaws. How do you take responsibility for the foreseeable damage you cause to others by acting in a probable and potentially perpetual conflict of interest?

**********