AGMs

It is important to remember that general meetings are for the owners to make decisions, whether the chair of the meeting or members of the strata management team admit it or not. 

Above all, do not sign a proxy. Attend the meeting, deliberate, and speak.
 

Council must give notice of the agenda, but it is arguable whether it must specifically state "Old Business" and "New Business" in so far as the SPA expressly gives notice that owners attending general meetings have discretion to control council.

"s. 27 (1) The strata corporation may direct or restrict the council in its exercise of powers and performance of duties by a resolution passed by a majority vote at an annual or special general meeting."

It's my understanding that if owners want to vote on their own bylaw proposals or other matters that go beyond directing or restricting the powers and duties of the strata council they can submit a s.43 petition signed by 20% to council well enough in advance to give notice.

The most fundamental power that owners have to form nominating committees and direct or restrict council's exercise of power and duty.

Proposed Privacy Policy

According to Jolanta Teszka, strata agent, Sunridge Estates does not have a privacy policy or a privacy officer as required by law.

I propose something simple, such as the following draft.

PRIVACY POLICY

Sunridge Estates – Strata Plan NW 2671, is committed to the protection of the personal information that it collects from you and to keeping personal information confidential, secure and private based on the BC Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). 

This means that this strata corporation will not collect, retain, or disclose any personal information unless required by law, or you decide to provide it to the strata, for example in correspondence, which must be disclosed pursuant to the Strata Property Act. The strata corporation will take security measures to protect your personal information in the event of complaints about you by others unless you consent to disclosure.  

Individuals can consent orally, in writing or electronically and consent may be implied or express depending on the nature and sensitivity of the personal information. Personal information means information about an identifiable individual, such as someone’s name, home address, social insurance number, sex, income or family status.  

Please note that as an owner you are responsible for familiarizing yourself with PIPA, as this Act regulates the way that the strata will collect, use, keep, secure and disclose personal information.  The strata corporation tells owners how to contact the privacy officer. Please keep this information for future reference.

The strata corporation also takes reasonable security measures to prevent unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure, copying, modification or disposal of personal information and will use reasonably secure methods whenever it destroys personal information.  

It is not uncommon that the strata corporation will communicate by way of email.  Email is not a secure form of communication, and there is always the risk that communications by way of email may be intercepted by others.  If you provide an email address the strata corporation will assume that it may communicate with you by email to that address until you say otherwise. If you have any objection to communicating by way of email please advise the strata's privacy officer in writing without delay. 

Strata Bullying

A single owner intent on ensuring that they are reasonably informed of the decisions taken and the money spent by a volunteer council can suffer even more damage from unscrupulous strata management than the community of owners.

Even though strata management companies are now required to be licensed through the Real Estate Council of BC, property management companies write contracts in ways that allow them to escape liability and permit them to conduct their affairs in a manner that condo owners are still not protected.
As a group, a strata corporation and its owners lack the accountability of an individual and can very easily take on the characteristics of a mob. Contrary to legal fiction, a strata corporation does not have the capacity of a natural person. It is an artificial entity, just like any other corporation or government. It does not have the capacity to feel pain or guilt or go to jail. Medical authorities label a natural person acting against others without such capacity a psychopath.

According to an article by Charlie Smith headlined in the Georgia Straight as "Vancouver condo expert Gerry Fanaken calls for legislative change to rein in strata council bullies" on May 22, 2013, "Veteran property manager Gerry Fanaken likes to refer to strata councils as a “fourth order of government”... These politicians end up overseeing their neighbours’ strata fees. And like other elected officials, they sometimes act in a high-handed manner toward their constituents."

The seeds for bullying in strata corporations are planted by the courts' deferential bias in favour of "the powers that be". People from other countries are shocked that our governments and courts allow the building industry to profit from their own wrongs the way that they do. A history of bias against strata owners in court decisions adds to the difficulty in suing the government or strata with any reasonable degree of success.

Although no Al MacLeod, Joan MacDougall, or Adrienne Murray types are named personally in Charlie Smith's article, Mr. Fanaken confirms that "there are lots of bullies out there—lots of people that completely violate the law and run the buildings the way they want to and not the way the Strata Property Act says. And there’s no recourse against them, no recourse of any substance.”

http://www.straight.com/news/384881/vancouver-condo-expert-gerry-fanaken-calls-legislative-change-rein-strata-council-bullies

My review of CASE law confirms that, despite the Strata Property Act promises, there is in deed comparatively LITTE, if any, RECOURSE of any SUBSTANCE. The message to owners from the courts and the powers that be is alarmingly clear: you fight the government at your peril.

We can try  http://www.marymacgregor.ca/article12.htm though, and try we must to have any reasonable expectation of systemic change. The fact that owners would rather cut their losses and move, says a lot about the administration of justice involving strata corporations everywhere.
The Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) for Sunridge Estates held on February 13, 2007 hosted a tag team that perpetuated ongoing strata bullying.

First there was the Chair, Tony Gioventu, Executive Director of the Condominium Homeowners’ Association (“CHOA”). Mr. Gioventu spurned my first attempt to enter the discussion, while allowing several others to take the floor and speak repeatedly, before and after. He responded to my objecting to this point of order by snapping, “And I’m the chair.” I felt vilified.

With over a third of the 68 owners selling in the year before the meeting, it is probable that this introduction gave the new owners a clear first impression of me as being someone to shun and disrespect. Mr. Gioventu allowed me to speak only after that particular impression had been established.

This was not the first time he identified me at a meeting with a negative insinuation. Mr. Gioventu made me feel maligned at the first Sunridge meeting he attended by announcing something like, “Oh, so this is Dianne Bond” followed by an unfairly disparaging comment, such as “I won’t allow you to disrupt this meeting” the exact words of which I can no longer remember.

Money talks, and power corrupts. The fact that Tony Gioventu is paid take these actions seems particularly ironic since I was the owner on council who first made the motion for the strata to join CHOA. I repeatedly worked to promote the association in the face of joint resistance from the strata manager and Peter Slack, another owner who was on council with me at the time.

Anyway, I digress. Back to the AGM; there was Joan MacDougall, of Bayside Property Management, playing her role. During a work order discussion on decks I tried to inform the meeting that section 98 of the Strata Property Act requires that unauthorized expenditures be restricted to the minimum amount required to remove the hazard - not to reconstruct it at 10 times the cost. Ms. MacDougall immediately veered into reading out a barrage of irrelevant gobblygook in a loud voice of authority that generated stress and confusion, wasting time and clouding the facts in an atmosphere of chaos.

This time pressure and doubletalk power tactic is typical of how strata agents obstructed my attempts to review strata records and prohibited my move to amend the special levy motion to confirm that the word "decks" referred to strata plan decks only, not illegally added extra decks.

Next, there was Al MacLeod. He is the guy who cut down our trees without authorization and the guy who has taken such a large portion of the common property rent-free for his own exclusive use that his patio stands out on photos taken from space satellites by GoogleEarth.

While Mr. MacLeod's patio remains the only one surrounded by trees the million dollar cost to reinstate preemptively destroyed trees everywhere else is an astronomical amount, far in excess of anything the owners could hope to come up with. From what I understand from being informed at the AGM, the owners would have to succeed in a law suit against those responsible for the loss, filed before the limitation date expires, in order to recover damages through the strata corporation’s two million dollar Officers and Directors liability insurance. What can be done as a group, however, cannot be done by myself as an individual. To suggest otherwise as was done at the meeting is a dangerous distraction and misrepresentation.

Mr. MacLeod told the meeting that 67 out of 68 owners want to go ahead on the decks without spending any more money on legal opinions, and money should not have to be spent just because of one person. He twice cited these 67 out of 68 owners. He did not inform the meeting of the legal opinion of Stephen Hamilton, which advises on removal of the extra decks, and he did not say whether the "one person" was himself, or another owner.

I tried to make a motion to direct council to impose user fees on owners to pay the expenses attributable to their own exclusive use of extra decks on common property, but Mr. Gioventu interfered with a lot of obstructive doubletalk. Nevertheless, despite all the confusion injected into the deliberations by a noisy minority, the owners made it clear that they were just as unwilling to pay for extra decks for others as when they approved the special levy. The owners carried my motion to direct council to have those with extra decks pay for their repairs and remove them from those unwilling to pay for their exclusive use.

When I saw the AGM minutes I was shocked. Ms. MacDougall tampered with them. The resolution published is not my motion. Ms. MacDougall changed the wording into bafflegab beyond recognition and told me some gobblygook about invalidity when I complained. I was so overwhelmed and demoralized that I gave up. So did others, including the owner who seconded my motion, who seemed just as stunned by the minutes and the magnitude of unscrupulous behaviour as me and the rest of the bullied owners, most of whom have since sold.

Ms. MacDougall's employment with Bayside ended after that and the strata kept changing management companies until the Al MacLeod era got her back, with Baywest, by June of 2008. Reviews of Baywest are posted online at http://www.stratawatch.ca/. Suffice it to say that the quality of strata management is a major problem.

The overwhelming nature of ongoing preemptive oppression breaks people down to the point of exhaustion and defeat. It is traumatic. It eventually does more than place your community and your investments at risk. It crystalizes those losses and wrecks havoc on lives. Like seeds of war and global suffering. It is my hope that it is not too late for change in generally accepted practices, for the good of all. Toothless legislation is the systemic foundation for strata strife.

************************

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2013/02/27/how-to-fight-strata-bullying

Tony Gioventu, 24 hours

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

To all owners of strata properties: Don’t let councils or managers get away with trivializing the legislation, your bylaws or prudent basic business principles.

It will eventually place your community and your investments at risk.

We see bullying in all forms in strata communities, often enabled by the strata councils and fuelled by the intent to control by the property manager. The grasp for power is matched by unscrupulous behavior.

Bullying also occurs from the owners. A single owner intent on harassing a volunteer council can do just as much damage to your community.

So what are the solutions? Compliance with all legislation and honest disclosure to the owners of the strata business is the first step. The Strata Property Act is not a guideline.

If a strata council or manager is abusing the legislation for their control, it’s time for replacements. Strata councils and managers who don’t tell the truth will eventually spend all of your strata funds and energy on defending lies. They will make every effort to demonize owners who are trying to “out” their behavior. Character assassinations, derogatory treatment, libelous council minutes all form part of the chain of abuse.

Bullying perpetuates when owners stand by. Breaking the hold certain groups of owners have on strata council, and all owners becoming involved in the strata business is the only solution. The seeds of apathy are sown every year at the AGM, when less than half of the owners ever attend to exercise their votes. As an owner, protect your community and your investment. Participate, encourage the constant renewal of council, encourage a transparent culture, attend meetings and take an interest in your properties.

Sincerely,
Tony Gioventu, Executive Director
Condominium Home Owners' Association (CHOA)
www.choa.bc.ca

************************

I realize that complaining about the established powers that be places me at enormous risk and that credibility is a major issue in breaking the hold that certain owners have on council. I have direct personal knowledge of many of the dangers.

The chain of reasons why owners allow strata agents, including members of council, to get away with unscrupulous behaviour, including trivializing legislation and bylaws and basic fairness include the demonization by character assassinations, derogatory treatment, and libelous council minutes I've experienced.

A transparent culture and compliance with all legislation and honest disclosure to the owners is the solution. You can take it from Mr. Gioventu and not just me. That is why records and casting votes are so important. As an owner, please attend meetings and take an interest in your properties. PAY ATTENTION to the facts and see what is happening.

************************

According to strataadvocate.ca over 50% of taxable properties in the Vancouver lower mainland and Victoria are strata units. BC strata legislation ignores the glaring lack of accountability for misconduct by strata property managers and leaves BC without defined offences and penalties for flagrant non-compliance with the law.

Current legislation sets the same "rules" for strata managers as for realtors and consequently, there is no requirement for a strata manager to comply with the Strata Property Act or to refrain from knowingly assisting non-compliance by a strata corporation.   Nor does a strata owner have effective access to the disciplinary process. Licensees are in a position of trust in advising strata councils but too often the advice is either incompetent or self-serving.   Undue influence by a strata manager can make it impossible for a strata council to pass the required motion for making a complaint to the Real Estate Council.   For too many situations the "rules" are weak or unenforceable or both.

I would have thought there is a requirement for everyone to comply with legislation, but that is not so if the legislation applies only to owners and council.

Concerned strata owners can visit http://www.strataadvocate.ca/site/whatyoucando.html for a suggested letter to use in expressing their views about the public input needed to produce improved legislation.

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.

Council Meeting - November 30, 2006

All decisions of the Strata Corporation are supposed to be made by the Strata Council in the manner prescribed by the Act and the Bylaws. That is not the case in fact. Not by a long stretch.

A review of the minutes recorded by Al MacLeod and Joan MacDougall over a certain time period reveals a pattern of errors and omissions that seems to significantly exceed innocent misrepresentation. I believe it rises to the level of fraudulent.

In this blog I present a hearing before council. It is just one example of council meetings being commandeered by the chair - and the type of misrepresentations and bias and non-existent votes on non-existent resolutions that management arbitrarily inserts into official strata records.

These generally accepted practices through the strata industry, which also include the incompetent practice of law without a licence, are a fundamental contributor to systemic corruption and strata strife.

The following posts address the first page or two of the minutes of November 30, 2006. The full 12 pages of these minutes can be viewed by clicking and scrolling down on the 0611 Nov30 link below, or Full Screen and Zoom and then Back to return to this post.

November 30, 2006, Council Meeting
0611 Nov30

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Law & Government Business & Law minutes

Votes on issues we raised are missing from the minutes, and erroneous proclamations and misrepresentations published in substitution and circulated as an official and permanent public record are very harmful.

I don't have what it takes to provide rebuttals to all the disparaging misrepresentations or defamatory attacks made repeatedly in the minutes, and even if I did, it's boring. Defending against endless misrepresentations is time consuming, traumatic, exhausting, and seemingly futile. Suffice it to say that strata property legislation requires that decisions be made by votes of council - not by arbitrary proclamations by the chair - which is what happens all too often. On November 30, 2006, that is what happened, most definitely. I have direct, personal knowledge of it.

Council was no more than Joan MacDougall's rubber stamp, or not even that much.

Rebuttal to page 1 of Minutes dated November 30, 2006

We left this hearing in a state of shock. The declarations by the chair were so fast-paced that our heads spun. We cannot recall even one resolution or vote on any of the 18 issues we raised.

In fact, the sheer volume of addressing nearly 70 items on the agenda, many of them major, including a blatantly unfair vote to approve an application for an extra deck for another unit, in less than 3 hours provides an indication of the lack of deliberation.

The first page of this example can be viewed by clicking on the image below, and then clicking on the back arrow to view the response that follows.



















In this post I try to respond to the chair's declarations, paragraph by paragraph, to the best of my ability.

4-star Introduction
The framed box published in the center of page 1 of the minutes contains the first misrepresentations:

**** The issues raised by the Owners of Unit #409 will be addressed in these Minutes and no further correspondence will be issued to them.

Issues we raised remain unaddressed. YEARS later. Resolutions to decide on said issues, many of which have been outstanding since 2001, were not made, discussed, or voted on by council. In fact, the members of council were not even given access to my correspondence or any reasonable opportunity to address the issues contained in it, and our efforts to raise the issues were effectively quashed by an extremely manipulative and overpowering chair.

The next misrepresentation is the claim that "no further correspondence will be issued to them". Such an avoidance tactic is not only a probable violation of duty, but oppressive correspondence containing further misrepresentations, which probably should not have been issued to us, was in fact issued to us.

It is not only the factual misrepresentations that we object to. An introduction of this nature circulated in the official permanent record fits into an insidiously disparaging pattern that we believe cultivates a false impression and negative attitude toward us, one that contributes to a hostile environment for strata living.

Enclosing this kind of negative misrepresentation within a framed box, and adding emphasis with 4 stars, published in the center of the front page, makes it just that much more troubling.

Next 2 sentences:
The guest Owners had 18 items to address with Council; some were old issues that have been dealt with by the previous Council. Many of these items concerned landscaping.

Implying that landscaping matters were "old issues" that had been "dealt with by the previous Council" is the next misrepresentation made in these minutes.

Examination of the minutes, as well as the landscaping itself, particularly around unit 409 show that our landscaping issues had not been dealt with by the previous Council. The fact that essential trees were arbitrarily cut down and destroyed without a vote, without authorization, and without need, by a person who said he had the right to take action against others, and the strata manager who prepared these minutes quietly paid the tree cutters and stump grinders and left the common property effectively vandalized, particularly around unit 409, which has been in the most unreasonable state of bare dirt and virulent weeds for more than 4 years and counting, has still not been addressed. With regard to the cost of the damages, I asked at the meeting what would be the price for the tree replacement. Nobody seemed to have the slightest idea, not even the strata management who prepared our strata budgets, and no action was taken to claim compensation for the damages under the strata's directors and officers liability insurance, or otherwise.

When I asked the same question of the next council, Trevor Neuman said that he estimated it would cost $15,000 to replace a single mature tree and that mature trees are not always available or viable for transplant. Although all of this was excluded from the minutes, based on the information he provided, the cost could be 2 million dollars higher than it should have been, or than was in the special levy budget; so our landscaping issues have persisted for years and the related damages and crushing costs of reinstatement have still not been addressed.

In fact, if our building is an average example of the 17 buildings in the complex, I estimate the number of trees that had to be cut down for the building envelope scaffolding to be only 30 to 50 trees, not over 150. I don't see how this could an "old issue" - particularly when the limitation period for the strata corporation to take remedial action against Al MacLeod and/or Joan MacDougall for their actions had not expired, and I don't see how any of these issues could be said to have "been dealt with" at any time.

Item #1 - Landscaping

The minutes claim that:
The Owners wanted to point out their concerns regarding the landscaping and that it be maintained at a “reasonable standard”. The Owners were encouraged to see Trevor Neuman in Unit #223, who has volunteered to oversee the landscaping reinstatement and has been working with the landscape architect. One of the issues raised is their desire to talk directly with the landscape architect and by volunteering to assist the Owner of #223 they would be able to contribute to the planning process. Subject closed.

We think Item #1 contains the 3rd, 4th, and 5th misrepresentations in these minutes.

Let's say the 3rd misrepresentation is the statement that we wanted to "point out" our concerns regarding the landscaping - we didn't want to point out our concerns - we had already done that in several previous letters to council, which we expected they had read - we wanted resolutions, assumed by the chair if necessary but voted on by council, and the chance to witness and respond to any corresponding discussion or debate during deliberations on the issues we had raised.

The 4th misrepresentation is the statement that we would be "able to contribute to the planning process". I volunteered repeatedly, but was not allowed to contribute. Owners, including myself, tried to serve on a landscaping committee, but in spite of our efforts, and contrary to the misrepresentations published repeatedly in the minutes, there effectively was no landscaping committee. My requests, both verbal and written, to schedule a meeting with Trevor were persistently rebuffed and refused the same as my previous attempts to participate on any landscaping committee, obtain copies of landscaping documents, or work with any "landscape architect."  In fact, I was strictly prohibited from having any contact our landscape architect.

Naturally I am concerned that just before said landscape architect quit he advised a meeting of owners that the strata never informed him of the restrictive covenants that run with the land, or of our history of geotechnical issues with the slope.

The 5th misrepresentation is that the subject of landscaping is "closed".  At the time of writing this it was nearly 3 years after the so-called hearing, and unit 409 was still surrounded with bare dirt and virulent weeds, with no "landscaping reinstatement" of our trees and plants, much less landscaping "maintained at a reasonable standard". As the cut trees were not reinstated their roots decomposed and suddenly buildings sank, suddenly breaking underground pipes left the common property peppered with patched pavement all over the complex, and problems with all kinds of doors further added to costs and our loss of enjoyment and geotechnical security. As more and more trees are destroyed contrary to section 71 of the Strata Property Act and the cycle of unreasonable neglect begins again the issue of landscaping is anything but closed.

Item #2 - Structural Damage from 2003

The minutes state that:
The Owners continue to insist that flooding in their unit, due to a burst Crane toilet tank, resulted in structural damage to their unit and the floors are not level and the doors do not close. Morrison Hershfield, Heatherbrae Construction and a restoration company previously investigated these complaints and did not find them valid. No written report was received. The Owners were advised that Council would be willing to consider having a qualified expert that was agreeable to both the Owners and the Strata Council on behalf of the Owners review these concerns and that if their opinion was concurrent with the previous opinions the Owners would agree to close this issue once and for all. The other suggestion was that if the complaints were not considered valid by the expert then the Owners would pay the cost for the expert's site visit and review. The Owners declined and further discussion, and any potential resolution, was tabled; this issue will be deferred until the new Council is elected at the upcoming Annual General Meeting.

As we see it the 6th misrepresentation in these minutes is in the claim that our complaints are not valid.

This undermines our credibility and clouds the fact that no insurance investigation or reasonable proposal was made to satisfy the strata corporation's duty to repair the water damage to unit 409. Furthermore, we have no knowledge as to what advice strata management has requested from experts with regard to our complaints or what investigated and not valid are supposed to mean with regard to the structural damage to the floors and doors in our unit.

What we do know is that when the strata corporation's engineer, Tam London, finally investigated he confirmed in writing that that the warping in unit 409 was consistent with water damage.

We also know that generally accepted practices through the strata agency and construction industries that twist the plain language meaning of words like "structure" "privacy" and "votes" for their own convenience do not change the word of law and the intention to give broad remedial interpretation, not doubletalk, industry jargon, and expanded or restricted meanings that could easily have been stated if so intended.

It is our position that:

1. Water damage is covered for repairs at full replacement value under mandatory strata corporation insurance.
2. The strata manager chairing this meeting did not make an insurance claim for these repairs before the time limit expired.
3. Our complaint is that repairs to our unit were limited to cosmetic surfaces only and the major repairs to the damaged fixtures and structures were promised but never completed.
4. The strata corporation has an ongoing duty to repair insured water damage and the structure of the buildings.
5. The strata corporation made inappropriate proposals that would shift its obligations onto us.
6. Resolution of this matter has been tabled since 2003.
7. We have been advised that if we tried to sell our unit it would be listed as a "fixer upper" and we would have to sign a disclosure statement to the prospective purchaser confirming the unrepaired damage to the fixtures and structure.

That's it for page 1.
I will continue with page 2 - paragraph by paragraph - and stop at page 3 - for now.

http://www.elimina.com/insights/

Rebuttal to page 2 of Minutes of November 30, 2006

Page 2 of these minutes can be read by clicking on the image below, and then clicking on the back arrow to return to this posting.

Item #3 - Deck Extension:
The minutes claim that:
The Owners wanted to have a tree replaced by their unit that they claim was cut down in order to extend the deck of Unit #407 or, alternatively, be allowed to modify their deck with an equivalent extension.

The 7th misrepresentation in these minutes is the claim that In general, no deck applications are being approved until the Strata Corporation's overall deck issues can be resolved, and a standard specification and bylaw to address decks can be agreed upon by the Ownership by means of a resolution that will require a 3/4 vote of a quorum of Owners at an Annual General Meeting or Special General Meeting.

This was outrageous. At the very same meeting Council approved Unit 516's request for an extra deck, without requiring a 3/4 vote, bypassing us, when we had been making a variety of requests for a remedial deck extension ever since 2001. The record shows under Business arising from the Minutes, item #1 Deck Requests: "It was moved, seconded (MathesonlBryson) and carried, with 3 in favour and 1 opposed, to approve the deck request by the Owner of #516, with the provision that this approval is subject to an annual review and, if required by Council, would have to be removed at the Owners expense."

We think the 8th misrepresentation lies in implying that our request to extend unit 409's deck could not have been approved at that meeting just as easily as at any other meeting. All that was required  to remedy the nuisance and unfairness caused to us by allowing illegally added extensions for intruders, instead of adding to it was for council to do their job and vote on an extension of unit 409's patio.

As far as passing a 3/4 resolution and dealing with "the strata corporation's overall deck issues" council could at that meeting, or any time in the past 15 years (or the next 7 years), give owners notice that permission for exclusive use of common property would be not be granted without a 3/4 vote of owners to impose user fees calculated with a similar formula for exclusive use as set out in the strata legislation. Otherwise there would be no permission for exclusive use or significant changes in the appearance of common property from the strata plan and any deck addition not in compliance could be removed from the common property with the landscaping and trees reinstated at far less cost to the strata than the alternative.

Item #4 - Compensation. The minutes claim that:
The Owners asked to be compensated for their losses resulting from their reaction to the caulking used in their unit during the window installation. This was an old issue and any compensation was denied.

This item is in regard to damages and personal injury arising from a chemical assault via excessive application inside our home of a sealant intended primarily for exterior use following our request for outside ventilation. We think the claim that it "was an old issue and any compensation was denied" is the 9th misrepresentation made in these minutes. I do not know when "any compensation was denied." Perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall seeing such a decision in any minutes.

Item #5 - Exterior Taps
The minutes claim that:
A hose bib is required as the exterior tap is more difficult to access since the building envelope repairs. A hose bib was supplied to the Owners, but the Owners want to have their tap adjusted to make it accessible as they aren't happy with the hose bib extension. It was the understanding of Dave Fookes of Morrison Hershfield that this issue had been concluded. The extension of the exterior water taps was done as a time and materials billing and was extra to the contract. To remove the rock work in order to accommodate this request would cost the Strata Corporation a fair amount of money, and the Council previously had indicated that they were satisfied that the hose bib extension resolved this issue. Subject Closed.

The 10th misrepresentation in these minutes is claiming that the hose bib extension of the exterior water taps was done. It was not done, at least not on unit 409.

The 11th misrepresentation is the claim that it was a time and materials billing extra to the contract. Extension of the exterior water taps was specified in the drawings and included when the owners approved the contract and the special levy to pay for it. Depriving selected units of these extensions was unreasonable, unusual, and punitive.

The 12th misrepresentation is that the subject was closed. We think a resolution to close the subject would be out of order and contradict the strata corporation's duty to repair and maintain the common property. We have not been able to screw our hose onto our tap for over 3 years, half the adapter went missing after council tested it, and our request for a replacement has been ignored, for years. This is not a satisfactory solution.

Although we are not construction contractors, we think the claim that, "To remove the rock work in order to accommodate this request would cost the Strata Corporation a fair amount of money" may be the 13th misrepresentation in this series.

We don't know what "a fair" amount of money is supposed to be, but the strata corporation's 2-year warranty insurance was supposed to cover defective design, labour, and materials, and our taps are no longer fit for the purpose for which they are intended.

We thought that the strata's directors and officers liability insurance was also supposed to provide some sort of protection for failure to make a claim under the warranty, or if the taps were deliberately vandalized.

Item #6 - Hardy Board Damage

The 14th misrepresenatation in the minutes is that: "The Owners claim that the hardy board is "gouged up" around their window."

The hardy board is in fact gouged up; to report it in the minutes as "the owners claim" is disparaging and undermines factual credibility. The gouges are plain to see in a highly visible part of our patio.

The 15th misrepresentation is the statement that: "If this is a deficiency, Heatherbrae will be addressing this during their site visits."

The gouges in the hardy board are, by definition, a deficiency. Heatherbrae is responsible and as of 2014 has not addressed it. The defects remain highly visible and still need to be remedied with either a sound board or replacement of the flashing.

The 16th misrepresentation is: "Some of the deficiencies in the past by these Owners were not deemed deficiencies by the engineer, and will therefore not be addressed or investigated further."

You don't have to be an engineer to see some of these deficiencies when pictures of them are posted on the world wide web. I have addressed them in my blog on the building envelope project and am content to allow the facts to speak for themselves as to credibility and further investigation rather than engage in tortured arguments.

The 17th misrepresentation is: "7. Compensation for Tree Removal: The Owners are asking to be compensated for the trees that were removed around their unit."

What we were really asking for was that the trees not be cut down, that they be reinstated after they were cut down, and that the damages be recognized and remedied, through insurance or other means.

The 18th misrepresentation is: "Tree removal was done in conjunction with the City of Coquitlam's arborist"

Tree removal around unit 409 and elsewhere in the complex was done after the City of Coquitlam prohibited it, and before the City of Coquitlam's arborist was involved.

The 19th misrepresentation is that "Tree removal was done in conjunction with ... an arborist hired by the Strata Corporation to remove dead trees or trees that were too close to the building."

Trees removed around Unit 409 were not dead. One of them had been just been pruned to remove a small branch that was broken during the building envelope project. Trees were removed around our unit that were not too close the building either. They were still standing when the building envelope repair scaffolding was removed. According to the minutes the decision of the strata corporation to hire an arborist was not made until about a year after the trees that were too close to buildings had been removed. Those that were spared and suddenly started dying were severely topped, their roots were severely crushed and exposed, their surroundings were stripped, and trees that could not stand alone were isolated. Basically, they were deliberately sabotaged.

The 20th misrepresentation is that "the Owners were advised to volunteer with the Owner of 223 to work with the landscape architect, and eventually the landscape contractor."

I had already volunteered to serve on the landscaping committee and the chair prevented me from participating by withholding and destroying reports, emailing insults, and failing to call or report on meetings. I was ordered not to contact the landscape architect, the Owner of 223 refused my requests to meet, prevented me from obtaining a copy of the landscape drawings, and emailed derogatory and defamatory comments behind my back.

The 21st misrepresentation is: "Overall, landscaping is being worked on"

Photos prove that landscaping around 409 was not worked on for 4 more years, and annual budgets, as well as the condition of the complex overall, further refute the claim that landscaping was being worked on.

The 22nd misrepresentation is that "as the landscaping is on common property, no compensation would be warranted."

We believe that the destruction of trees on the common property is vandalism and would cost thousands, and possibly millions of dollars to reinstate, and it was done in conjunction with the chair of this meeting, who paid for unauthorized tree removal around our unit with funds from the strata corporation's trust account, when there was no meeting, no vote, and no minutes to authorize either removal or payment. We further believe that "no compensation would be warranted" by the strata's insurance only if the strata corporation failed to make a claim or sue the parties responsible for the damage arising out of their perceived "right" to act against us.

The erroneous minutes go on and on - paragraph by paragraph - year after year - but it is too exhausting and traumatic for me to continue defending against them.

Suffice it to say that a trend of misrepresentations continuing for years has escalated into false and malicious accusations of assault, and evidence of vandalism, and records which we have no way of knowing whether they are true or not. We feel vilified to the point of being mobbed by what feels like discriminatory little hate groups - where new people I introduce myself to promptly ask if I broke a gate that I did not even know was broken.


http://www.elimina.com/insights/