Is it PRIVACY or COVER-UPS?

Generally accepted practices are those established and recommended by many organizations. Some are more legitimate than others.

I think interpretations that restrict or expand the word of law to effectively avoid strict responsibilities to disclose information are alarmingly accepted for the sake of highly questionable interests. In fact, it has become generally accepted practice through the strata agent industry for strata management to thwart the requirements of the Strata Property Act in a variety of ways.

Nondisclosure of strata records under the guise of privacy deprives owners of material factual data that is necessary to make reasonably informed decisions or expose evidence of corruption in a timely manner, or at all. The costs are astonishing.

Sunridge Estates in Coquitlam has a history of  hiding evidence that would raise an apprehension of misconduct in the operations of the strata corporation and failing to provide access to factual data, holding up exaggerated claims of privacy and privilege as a shroud, while at the same time repeatedly publishing unfair misrepresentations, false accusations, and disparaging  innuendos against complainants and identifiable individuals.

The strata made it is impossible for me to obtain copies of requested strata records, deleting records carried by email, then making a rule to delete email from owners unread.

The Strata Property Act of B.C. says an email notice is deemed to have been given four days after it is emailed. Refusing to accept email or deleting it unread is inconsistent with the Act and places the strata at risk.

This link that somebody posted on the internet anonymously is an example of the generally accepted practices of strata agents in the industry and shows exactly WHO actually gets privacy protection, and WHY, and who does NOT:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/mrp-listings/7/1/3/4806317/216100fe69a195d908761618a4589da6.pdf
and my email messages to council, which I started the same day and also faxed to the strata.

From: Dianne Bond
To: Joan MacDougall
Cc: Gordon Matheson 318 ; Jim Brose 402 ; Geri Campbell 514
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:51:12 AM
Subject: Request for Strata Records 

Joan Re: Strata Plan NW 2671 - Sunridge Estates I trust that you delete email from owners unread, so I will fax a copy to your office for you to forward to council.  

I am writing to confirm my understanding of the situation with respect to reviewing the strata records as requested. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong, and I will make specific changes to set the record straight. 

I arrived at your offices at about 5:45 last night to review the records at 6 pm as I had said in my letter. When I asked you to give me the email correspondence, invoices, and landscaping drawings that I requested, you acted in a manner that I considered to be obstructive. It appeared to me that you must have deleted my letter unread, as you said something like: You are early. The meeting doesn't start until 7.  What do you want? I gave you everything you asked for.  

I said, and I quote: "No, you didn't." and "Let's not get in a fight."  I also said something like: I want the documents I requested in my letter, particularly the email. I want the printed copies of the email that are retained pursuant to the Strata Property Act, and I want the landscaping drawings and invoices. 

You said, "I deleted all the email", which I wrote down verbatim as you said it. Then you said something like, I can give you the landscaping documents.  At or about 6 pm you gave me a few pages of the same landscaping material that you gave me previously.  

I asked you again for the drawings, saying everybody is driving here because the records are all supposed to be here and made available. I told you I had come here for them and that I had asked so many times before that I had waited far longer that the statutory limit.  

You said, "I'm not doing it tonight." and "I don't have the drawings." I confirmed your refusal to provide the requested documents, said the ball was in your court, and to conduct yourself accordingly. I wasted the next half hour waiting around until about 6:30, then I went for something to eat and returned at 7 pm for the meeting. 

From what I could see at the meeting, it looked to me as if you had not provided the members of council with copies of my correspondence, and from I could see, it looked like the only copy you provided at the meeting was edited down from 8 pages to one, and handed out so late that much, if not all, of its value was lost. Please clarify the timing and the number of pages if I am wrong in this regard.  I will send email to anyone who provides their email address on the understanding that those who will not accept email from me can delete it unread or otherwise block my messages.  

I asked council for the records also and was asked things like why do you want that?  Why do you want invoices? We are not going to use the landscape design, it has too many flowers, so you don't need it.  

I said something like: I want you to provide the documents to me for the reasons set out in my letters. So I can find out what is going on. Because I have an apprehension of  misconduct and unfair allocation of funds.Because we paid for the drawings. Because the Strata Property Act says so. 

You finally told Trevor to give me the drawings from the new landscape architect. From what I could see, he seemed to resist, and he told me something like, "Don't knock on my door." I gave up on fighting further to get any documents at about that point. 

Please provide the documents as requested, or your reasons for withholding them from me.  

Dianne Bond, Unit 409

I never did receive remedies or records that I requested. Instead I got intimidation and abuse by council.

From:  Dianne Bond
To: mreid@coquitlam.ca
Cc: Gordon Matheson 318 ; Jim Brose 402 ; Geri Campbell 514 ; Joan MacDougall
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 7:35:29 AM
Subject: Hearing before Strata Council

Mae, I don't have your home email, so please let me know if you have another email address that you would prefer me using.  

I have had no sleep all night. Please let me know what set you off at last night's meeting.  Whatever it was, I am writing to confirm my understanding of your conduct and to request corrections if I am wrong. I hope you do not delete this unread before it is printed and retained in the strata corporation records, edited as required to remove any personal information. 

Last night you said a couple of things to me that sounded so combative and threatening to me that I became too upset to be able to remember what I heard long enough to write it down. All I know for sure is that I replied by saying "Ditto" and that you didn't like that and that you got up and walked out of the room, saying to me: "You need psychiatric help" "Don't push me" and "Bitch", all of which I wrote down as you spoke so that I would not forget, or make a mistake in quoting you for the record. I replied nothing more than "Ditto" to each of the above-mentioned things that you said. 

Joan MacDougall said what sounded to me like we won't record that. Geri Campbell said what sounded to me as if she had written it all down. I believe that I asked that it be recorded in the minutes, exactly what Mae Reid said to me, as it is important that threats and abuse be exposed.

If you believe that my understanding of these events is wrong, please advise me of the specific errors without delay, so that I can correct any inaccuracies, including omissions, if any.  

If you have any qualifications to determine my need for psychiatric help, please provide your CV, along with any evidence to support your opinion, and I will provide the information to my doctor.  Otherwise, please retract your statement. I would like an apology in any event. 

Dianne

Ms. Reid did not reply or apologize to me. She did, however, make false accusations that I was stalking her, even though I spoke to her only about twice in my life, and when another precious tree was cut down outside 409's window when she listed unit 510 for sale, she claimed that I have vendetta against her.

**********

Major problems arise when licenced strata managers and lawyers with the voice of authority disregard or interpret legislation and reference certain parts out of context, in contradiction to other parts, for purposes that are unreasonable and inappropriate. Owners should be able to trust fiduciaries to respect rights and responsibilities.

Owners must be able to rely on law.

Generally accepted practices and guidelines do not constitute a finding in law and as such should not be held to interpret enactments more broadly or restrictively than plain language for purposes that are unreasonable and inappropriate. Allowing special interests to inappropriately tamper with rights and responsibilities in strata corporations brings the administration of law into disrepute.

In fact, generally accepted practice through the strata industry and the contributions that associations of strata property agents, realtors, and strata lawyers make in policy development often reflect inherent conflicts of interest that favour those making the interpretations far more than the strata corporations and owners that they supposedly represent.

Privacy legislation has been used by strata management to charge exorbitant extra fees for unreasonable make-work projects manufacturing thousands of pages of irrelevant information and standard form letters that no reasonable person would have any interest in, blocking out personal information that is in the public domain, while at the same time failing to provide access to material strata records that were specifically requested.

Obstructing access to strata records makes it more difficult for owners to question the administration. It covers up problems and facilitates caveat emptor sales, reduced responsibilities, and increased fees. Thwarting the requirements of the Strata Property Act may be more efficient for management convenience, but it is not effective for disclosure of factual data, or exposing misconduct. It helps keep generally accepted practices through the strata agent industry secret, generating new billing opportunities for strata managers and lawyers for their own benefit, unfairly forcing owners to give up their rights or take legal action unreasonably for each violation in an ongoing string.



The strata's delays and refusal to provide minutes of particular strata council meetings, and bogus claims that correspondence does not exist, and anything delivered by email is private and not part of the strata records, and refusing me access for 10 years to the insurance policy that was in effect on July 23, 2003, if there even was a policy on that date, are never ending.

 

 

Why is that?

Hiding and tampering with material evidence has been going on since long before the privacy act came in force.  I don't see how obstructing access to and destroying email and other strata records is in the best interests of the strata corporation or individual owners. It makes me think that most of the  barriers to information and communication between owners are unjustified, unreasonable, and driven by zealous control and inappropriate secrecy that is a conflict of interest, detrimental, and corrupt, if not illegal.   

Knowledge is power. Deterring access to strata records keeps owners ignorant and dependant and gives strata agents added control. Strata management have been obstructing and failing to provide access to information by persistently burying, withholding, tampering with, and destroying strata records that are specifically requested, wasting astonishing amounts of time and money, forcing owners to spend valuable time during business hours to travel in person to the registered records office.

As far as the privacy argument goes, privacy is breached more by strata managers and council members than ordinary owners. Each time I have reviewed strata records under the high priced eyes of strata managers they have negligently breached privacy, without exception.

Strata managers have repeatedly provided identifying information which one would expect to be reasonably protected, while at the same time unreasonably failing to provide access to material correspondence. Al Macleod, as strata president, broadcast all the email addresses of owners to other owners, not just once, but multiple times in addition to repeatedly making defamatory claims against me to others.

Strata agents for Sunridge Estates in Coquitlam seem to have generally accepted the advice of W.C. Fields:

On January 6 and 7, 2014, I took the time to attend the offices of Fraser Property Management to review the strata records but, even then, the strata manager, Jolanta Teszka, failed to provide me with access to the requested records. I heard her repeatedly raise the issue of privacy and a multitude of contradictions.

Privacy guidelines recognize that when an identifiable individual is the target of complaint that the strata corporation should take appropriate security measures to protect personal information that the facts might reveal. The guidelines also recognize that owners give implied consent to the strata corporation to collect, and disclose for purposes that are reasonable and appropriate, personal information that they voluntarily give about themselves.

In fact, Guideline 8 of the Privacy Guidelines for Strata Corporations and Strata Agents states: That if it is required by or authorized by law a strata corporation can disclose personal information without consent.

In violation of the Strata Property Act, Ms. Teszka failed to provide access to correspondence and made the following contradictory excuses:

1. She could not disclose correspondence under the Strata Property Act due to the Privacy Act.
2. She could not disclose correspondence from owners without their express permission.
3. Blocking out identifying information does not provide the required protection.
4. Factual accounts or opinions in correspondence are personal information.
5. The management company could be fined $100,000 for disclosure.
6. In any event there is no correspondence from owners making complaints or requests.

Moments later I found letters from owners complaining about trees and requesting that they be cut down and that various payments be made.

1. I reviewed Unit 409's file and complained that material was missing, and she said that not everything was on site.
2. I asked for copies of strata records that I had been requesting since April 24, 2010, and she said she had no knowledge of my requests and needed a couple of weeks to obtain the material.
3. I asked to review the large volume of correspondence complained of in the president's report at the last AGM, including a copy of the "filthy letter" from an owner that he offered at the meeting, and she said she had no knowledge of said correspondence.
4. I asked if she was at the meeting, she confirmed that she was but the correspondence that Al MacLeod referred to is not in the strata records and therefore must be private communications.

1. I asked to review correspondence between the strata council and she told me that there is none.
2. I asked to review email and she told me that there is no email.

I saw email listed in invoices, and she advised me that any correspondence delivered by email is private and not part of the strata records. I don't understand that when the Strata Property Act gives owners the right to observe meetings and review correspondence.

 

I asked for a copy of the strata's registered and records office and did not receive it.

1. I asked for an information certificate and did not receive it.
2. I asked to review correspondence involving the strata lawyers, strata managers, or other professionals, and she said no problem but she had nothing available and needed more time.
3. I asked to review the work of the auditor, and she said no it was mixed in with other stratas.
4. I asked to review the strata's blueprints, and she said they were not currently available and to try again in a couple of months.
5. I asked to review all of the records available pursuant to the Strata Property Act, and she said that was an unreasonable request. 
6. I reviewed invoices and asked for some copies, and she said copies would not be ready until the next day.

I asked to return at 9:30 the next day, and she said no she would not be in until 11:30. When I left I told her that I've been going through this routine for 10 years and when I call strata managers honey and dear it is in lieu of profanities.

The next day I came at 11:30, and she was not there. I asked to review the lawyer's work and was told I have to wait for Jolanta. I left at 1:30 when she still was not there. I asked that Jolanta call me when the records I requested were ready for review.

With respect to the reasonableness of my request to review all of the records available pursuant to the Strata Property Act, I would like to review the strata's inventory of those items that the strata corporation is no longer required to insure. So far, I have found no evidence that such an inventory exists. 

We would like to see if the strata has insurance on items not installed by the developer, such as the replacement windows and doors, garage door opener, ensuite bath surround, hot water tank, toilets, taps, and door hardware in Unit 409, and if so, under what terms. If replacing old bathroom pipes or other items deprives us of strata insurance that owners otherwise have a right to, it seems perverse.

I was unable to access records that I specifically requested, repeatedly, including copies of:

1. the Landscape/Deck Legal Opinion from Stephen Hamilton, the $210 cost which is dated April 11, 2008, in the January 2008 – May 2008 General Ledger (Accrual) list.
2. Mr Hamilton’s $1,695 of miscellaneous work between February 8 and April 1, 2008.
3. historical landscaping contracts
4. blueprints for building 7 showing the electrical, plumbing, and chimney details for the common property and strata lot 25
5. plans that were required to obtain a building permit and any amendments to the building permit plans that were filed with the issuer of the building permit; and any document that indicates “the actual location” of a pipe, “wire”, cable, chute, duct or other facility for the passage or provision of systems or services not located “as shown on a plan or plan amendment filed with the issuer of the building permit”
6. the strata corporation’s 2008 financial statements showing the Halford's $10,000 which Mr MacLeod funneled through the strata to himself
7. historical legal opinions on the deck issue
8. request for skylight repairs to unit 514, including any chargebacks, re 2 skylights reported for repair in the minutes of May 20, 2010
9. report on the funding for the associated costs of the added skylights and landscaping activities
10. resolutions approving changes under s.71 of the SPA
11. minutes from the 2010 AGM (and council meetings in the year after)
12. legal authority giving the strata corporation the right to refuse to accept a delivery method that is specifically set out in the SPA
13. NW2671’s current legal address for delivery
14. landscaping and insurance records that I have previously requested
15. the engineer and contractor reports that the issues inside unit 409 "have no bearing on the toilet leak”
16. the professional opinion referenced in “This owner has chosen to ignore professional opinion”
17. historical permits to remove trees
18. email from the city arborist saying that “birch was not a suitable planting”
19. the strata lawyer’s advice to deal with my request for copies of correspondence
20. landscaping meeting minutes and notice of meetings
21. insurance for 2002, 2003, and 2004
22. historical invoices and correspondence to and from strata lawyer
23. historical contracts
24. historical correspondence from owners
25. historical correspondence between council members or council and management

Material that I asked for and obtained copies of could easily have been mailed:

1. a list of owners (strata lot numbers were not included, only 18 of 68 survived the last 10 years)
2. the strata management company contract (urgently needing legal review)
3. the landscaping contract (which could be upgraded with additional fertilizer and pest control)
4. a 5-year exclusive contract with Becker & Company, the strata's current lawyer, made October 21, 2013 (which council has not been complying with in regard to strata records, time being of the essence, etc.) 
5. the Willis warranty with Commonwealth insurance made October 11, 2005 (with exclusions too broad to mention)
6. statements of account for repairs and maintenance and legal fees

I also reviewed and obtained copies of certain invoices showing money paid to Al MacLeod's girlfriend for work that I had already done without charge, and money paid for document shredding when copies of the strata records I requested were never provided to me. The level of corruption and the staggering costs over time is  beyond belief.

 

 

The invoices also included:

1. about $8,000 for 10 of Adrienne Murray's invoices for legal fees from June 30/11 to Mar 31/13 regarding alterations to common property, bylaw amendments, bylaw enforcement, and a "Decks 2010" opinion letter and alteration agreement (which I have been requesting a copy of for years and still have not received)   
2. Coquitlam tree cutting permit issued to Al MacLeod on June 1, 2012 to remove 1 pine and 12 birch trees 
3. about $4,300 for 3 of McConkey Arborist's invoices for tree removals from June12/12 to May 20/13
4. about $38,000 for 7 invoices for repairs and maintenance of sanitary main, sewer line, broken water line, auger line, excavating down to break, jet flush, and various drain issues from 6 months from Jan 25-July 15/13. 
5. about $9,000 for 4 invoices for swing door problems from Sept 18/12 to Apr 9/13
6. about $6,800 for 6 invoices for garage door problems from Sept 11/12 to June 12/13
7. about $1,600 for invoice for a sliding door repair on Nov 14/13
8. Unit 409, showing $150 in Mar 1/13 fines for alleged breaches of alleged bylaws

From my walk about the complex and review of invoices for all the repairs to sewer lines, overhead doors, swing doors, and sliding doors it looks like geotechnical problems are an ongoing issue.

The invoices also reveal some of the perks that the strata is purchasing for certain individuals and denying to others. Garage door openers are an example. It looks to me like automatic openers, which were not included as built originally by the developer and which the minutes say are not a strata responsibility, are included on the invoices for unit 518 owned by Mae Reid and unit 209 owned by Peter Slack's widow, but are not included on the invoices I reviewed for other units.

Phase 1 was built with keyed handles for the overhead doors but no automatic openers, while phase 2 was the opposite, it had automatic openers but no handles, keyed, or otherwise.

From my walk about the complex and review of invoices it looks to me like the strata is upgrading certain units in phase 2 with keyed handles, and downgrading units in phase 1 by not reinstating their keyed handles on overhead door replacements.

 

For some reason, I am unable to see a mailing address for the strata corporation in any of the contracts. It seems strange.  Really. Just as strange as the recent history of prohibiting a delivery method that includes a material record of receipt and distribution.

In any event, I have no reason to believe that any strata bylaw on delivery restrictions that stand in conflict with, or take precedence over, the registered and records office of the strata corporation and the delivery provisions in the Strata Property Act is valid.

Nothing in the Privacy Act should contradict the provisions of the Strata Property Act or deny access to strata records in a manner that effectively thwarts legislated disclosure.

In fact, the first time I attended a strata manager's office to review the strata records, the first thing she provided to me was all of the names, addresses, and occupations of every single owner before burying the few pages that I wanted by manufacturing 900 redacted copies of extraneous material that nobody would have any reasonable interest in, but omitting the most important material I requested.

The same strata manager told me that she deleted strata records carried by email. I think this is scandalous.  

I have been informed that those emails included incriminating evidence of defamatory claims against me from herself to members of council.

Am I the only owner whose efforts to gain access to strata records have been obstructed? What is going on in strata corporations? How did it become generally accepted practice in the strata agent industry to deny access to strata records that are supposed to be available for disclosure upon request under the law? What do we not know?

In 2014 my CanLii search for decisions citing Kayne v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2374, 2007 BCSC 1610 resulted in zero cases, but it is clear to me that over the past 6 years this case has been relied on as a key component in the development of generally accepted practices in the strata agency industry that effectively thwart the disclosure requirements of the Strata Property Act.

 

With respect to the reasonableness of my request to review all of the records available pursuant to the Strata Property Act, I would like to review the strata's inventory of those items that the strata corporation is no longer required to insure and significant changes to the use and appearance of the common property under section 71. So far, I have found no evidence that such inventories exists. 

It is my understanding that the standard bylaw requiring owners to inform the strata when they make changes in their strata lot, such as buying new carpets, is reasonable and not an invasion of privacy because when an owner is making a change to items installed by the developer notice gives the strata the ability to maintain an inventory of those items that are currently under the strata corporation's insurance policy which the strata is no longer required to insure.

If, however, replacing worn out items before a catastrophic loss occurs automatically voids strata insurance that the owner otherwise has a right to, it unreasonably discourages replacing old bathroom pipes, for example. In Unit 409 we changed the ensuite bath surround, hot water tank, toilets, taps, fridge and certain door hardware. We would like to see if the strata has insurance on items not installed by the developer, such as replacement of damaged toilets, windows, doors, and other fixtures, and if so, under what terms.

Naturally barriers to communication are enthusiastically supported by power and control driven strata councils and management who obstruct access to owner lists, correspondence and other strata records that owners are entitled to, perversely citing privacy legislation as justification, while at the same time publicizing the email addresses of all the owners, issuing fines for failure to provide a key to private homes, and hiding covert misrepresentations and evidence that raises an apprehension of misconduct, if not outright vandalism, embezzlement, and money laundering.

I think unreasonably blocking owner communication and access to strata records is scandalous, it should not be tolerated, and the time to shine a spotlight on it is long overdue.