TH E N EWS LETTE R OF TH E CANAD IAN CON D OM I N I U M INSTITUTE/INSTITUT CANAD I E N D E S CON D OM I N I U M S
T H E
V O I C E
review
O F
C O N D O M I N I U M
N AT I O N A L E D I T I O N / S P R I N G 2 0 1 1
PHOTO CREDIT: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/QINGWA
Bedbugs
How to Combat
How
Combat Large
LargetoAccounts
Accounts
ReceivableReceivable
Balances Balances
review
inside this issue
3 Message from the President
4 CCI Excited for Development of
New Brunswick Chapter
5 How to Combat Large Accounts
Receivable Balances
2010-11 NATIONAL EXECUTIVE BOARD
Chairman
Janice Pynn, RCM, ARP, ACCI, FCCI
Simerra Property Management Inc., Toronto, ON
President
Jim MacKenzie, MBA, DAA, FCIP (Hons)
Dusyk & Barlow Insurance Brokers Ltd., Regina, SK
Vice-President
Geoffrey K. Penney, BA, LLB
Ottenheimer Baker Barristers & Solicitors, St. John’s, NL
Directors-at-Large
Bill Thompson, BA, RCM, ACCI, FCCI
Malvern Condominium Property Management, Toronto, ON
Kim Coulter, B. Tech. (Arch.Sc), ACCI, FCCI
Coulter Building Consultants Ltd., Burlington, ON
Douglas G. Steen
Steen Property Management Inc., Thunder Bay, ON
Douglas J. Forbes, LLB
Thompson Dorfman Sweatman LLP, Winnipeg, MB
Secretary/Treasurer
Peter K. Harris, CA, ACCI, FCCI
Harris & Chong LLP, Toronto, ON
2010-11 NATIONAL COUNCIL
Vancouver Chapter
Jamie A. Bleay, LL.B
Access Law Group, Vancouver, BC
North Alberta Chapter
Jim Wallace
Condo Cash Program Inc., Edmonton, AB
South Alberta Chapter
Stephen Cassady
CondoPapers, Calgary, AB
North Saskatchewan Chapter
Jamie Nykolaishen, LL.B
Wallace Meschishnick Clackson Zawada, Saskatoon, SK
South Saskatchewan Chapter
Vicki Radons, Regina, SK
Manitoba Chapter
Lou Anna Roberts, C.E.T.
GENIVAR, Winnipeg, MB
Northwestern Ontario Chapter
Paul Muller
Kamlodge Services Ltd., Thunder Bay, ON
6 Volunteer Month - April
7 Something Smells
11 Bedbugs
12 Condo Cases across Canada
17
Chapter Chatter
22 ACCI Designation
23 CCI Courses - Seminars -
Workshops: Coast to Coast
Windsor Chapter
D.R. (Dan) Sills, M.Eng.
ECCO No. 17, Windsor, ON
Huronia Chapter
Shari Davidson
Brookfield Residential Services, Barrie, ON
London Chapter
Don Peter, C.I.M., P.Mgr., CMM
Donald J. Peter & Associates Inc., Thedford, ON
Golden Horseshoe Chapter
Ron Danks, BA, LLB, ACCI, FCCI
Simpson Wigle Law LLP, Hamilton, ON
Toronto & Area Chapter
John Warren, CA
Adams & Miles LLP, Toronto, ON
Ottawa Chapter
John D. Peart, LL.B., CFP, ACCI, FCCI
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP, Ottawa, ON
Nova Scotia Chapter
Carol Conrad, BA
Halifax, NS
Newfoundland & Labrador Chapter
Carol Burke
St. John’s, NL
NATIONAL OFFICE
Executive Director
F. Diane Gaunt
Operations Manager
Alison Nash
2175 Sheppard Ave. E., Ste 310
Toronto, ON M2J 1W8
cci.national@taylorenterprises.com
* CCI is a government registered trademark
Message from the President
BY J I M M AC K E N Z I E , M B A , DA A , F C I P ( H O N S ) , C C I N AT I O N A L P R E S I D E N T
Spring will (hopefully) have sprung by
the time you read these words. The most
challenging winter in many years is showing signs of easing as I write.
Spring is always a season of renewal and
resumption and the same is true at CCI
(although our committees and executive
have remained busy over the winter). Plans
for the spring meetings and conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia
in June are well underway and I hope that you will give some
consideration to attending (see elsewhere in this issue).
I discussed last issue about how CCI has signed a strategic
agreement with the Community Associations Institute (CAI) in
the United States. The first evidence of this will be in CCI’s
attendance at the annual CAI Annual Conference and Exposition
in Boca Raton, Florida in May. Janice Pynn and I will be attending
on behalf of CCI. It is a full week of courses – I’m actually
daunted by the breadth of content! – and I’m looking forward
to bringing home a lot of useful information and ideas that we
can use at CCI National and at our chapters.
I’ve mentioned it before, but the work our committees has been
doing of late has been exceptional. There are some exciting
developments. I’ve personally been involved with our national
“rebranding” and with building better relationships with
governments across the country. The credit really goes to the
committee chairs and the committees at large, and to Diane,
Alison and Jacqueline and all the staff at CCI National.
I had an academic colleague (I teach part-time at the Paul J. Hill
School of Business at the University of Regina) talk to me
recently about CCI. He wanted to know who we were and
what we were about. I thought about it for a moment and told
him this: we’re a group dedicated to educating and informing
people about condominiums, and to make condominium living
as good as possible. It doesn’t matter if you’re a condo owner
or a professional – what can we teach people about condominiums so that when they buy or sell a unit, serve on a board,
or provide professional services to condominiums, they have the
information needed to do the best job possible? Think about
this question – and let’s aspire to maximizing the benefits of
condominium living. A little knowledge goes a long way.
CCI National Chapter Contacts
CCI-National
E-mail: cci.national@taylorenterprises.com
Website: www.cci.ca
CCI-North Saskatchewan
Email: northsaskatchewan@cci.ca
Website: www.cci.ca/NorthSaskatchewan
CCI-Huronia
Email: info@ccihuronia.com
Website: www.ccihuronia.com
CCI-Windsor-Essex County
Email: cciwindsoressex@gmail.com
Website: www.cci.ca/Windsor
CCI-Vancouver
Email: contact@ccivancouver.com
Website: www.ccivancouver.ca
CCI-South Saskatchewan
Email: cci@accesscomm.ca
Website: www.cci.ca/ssc
CCI-London & Area
Email: ccisw@cci-sw.on.ca
Website: www.cci-sw.on.ca
CCI-Northwestern Ontario
Email: ccinorthontario@shaw.ca
Website: www.cci.ca/NWOntario
CCI-North Alberta Chapter
Email: info@cci-north.ab.ca
Website: www.cci.ca/NorthAlberta
CCI-Manitoba
Email: ccimanitoba@cci.ca
Website: www.cci.ca/Manitoba
CCI-Ottawa
Email: cciottawa@cci.ca
Website: www.cci.ca/Ottawa
CCI-Nova Scotia
Email: info@ccinovascotia.ca
Website: www.ccinovascotia.ca
CCI-South Alberta Chapter
Email: SouthAlberta@cci.ca
Website: www.cci/ca/SouthAlberta
CCI-Toronto & Area
Email: ccitoronto@taylorenterprises.com
Website: www.ccitoronto.org
CCI-Golden Horseshoe
Email: admin@ghccci.org
Website: www.ghccci.org
CCI-Newfoundland & Labrador
Email: ccinewfoundland@cci.ca
Website: www.cci/Newfoundland
CCI REVIEW |
SPRING 2011
| 3
CCI Excited for Development
of New Brunswick Chapter
CCI has long since been established as a National organization.
We are proud to have chapters coast to coast in Canada.
However we are also excited when the opportunity arises to
provide services in new centres where the condominium
industry is beginning to blossom! Such is the case in the
Province of New Brunswick.
Over the past year, it has been full-steam ahead with the
development and cultivation of CCI’s 16th chapter in
New Brunswick. While in the works for a number of years,
things have really begun to come together and gain momentum
over the past 12 months. The New Brunswick Steering
Committee, led by Ms. Phil Williams, is charging forward as it
plans events for the spring, and answers the needs of the
25 members they already have on file. There is no doubt
that these initial 25 members are only the tip of the iceberg,
demonstrating a clear interest in and need for CCI in the
province. We are happy to bring together those who are a part
of the growing condominium industry province-wide; from owners
and board members to professionals and service providers.
We are happy to bring together
those who are a part of the
growing condominium
industry province-wide
CCI-National has been working along side the Steering
Committee, and Ms. Phil Williams in Fredericton, to ensure that
they are ready to meet the needs of their members and grow
the chapter. CCI-National Vice President Geoff Penney has
been the primary contact between the Committee and the
National Executive. The Committee has also received great
assistance and support from our friends at CCI Nova Scotia
Chapter, building on the foundation laid by Ms. Patsy Ernst and
Ms. Judy Orr. This group of dedicated volunteers is exactly what
CCI needs across New Brunswick – a mix of professionals and
owners, who want to provide quality condominium education
and informational seminars to the province.
Looking forward, CCI-National is excited to be supporting the
Committee’s seminars being held this Spring. Through its
network of experts in the industry, CCI-National will be able to
bring first-rate education to the people in New Brunswick, be
it in Fredericton, Moncton, or Saint John. As well, it is CCINational’s intention to continue working with the Chapter to
grow its membership and develop its reputation as the go-to
organization for the New Brunswick government and all those
interested in the condominium industry.
There is no doubt that CCI’s presence in New Brunswick is
developing rapidly. We encourage all those interested to
contact Ms. Phil Williams at ccinewbrunswick@cci.ca. As the
Chapter’s profile grows, CCI is quickly becoming Your Condo
Connection…in New Brunswick!
Correction:
With our apologies, on page 26 of the Winter CCI
Review, Stephen Cassady was identified as CCI
North Alberta President. Stephen Cassady is
President of CCI South Alberta Chapter.
4
| SPRING 2011 | C C I R EVI EW
J E F F L AC K , B A c c , C G A
How to Combat Large
Accounts Receivable
Balances
Authors Note: This article discusses
collection practices based on current
legislation enacted in Ontario under the
Condominium Act, 1998. Legislation may
vary in other provinces. Boards of Directors
and management must obtain their own
legal advice with respect to legislation in
their own province / territory to ensure that
the practices they employ are valid.
Are the Accounts Receivables at your
corporation out of control? Are owners
paying on a consistently late basis? Is the
corporation running into overdrafts to pay
its bills because of this? Most importantly,
are you taking the proper steps to correct
the problem?
Signs of Trouble
The first step that is necessary is to
recognize you have a problem. If the
Accounts Receivable balance on your
Balance Sheet is the only figure you look at
each month, you may not recognize you
have a problem until it is too late to correct
it. Does a balance of $5,000 indicate
collection issues? It might if your average
monthly balance is only $200. However if
your building is a two-tower high-rise with
400 units and a $4 million budget, $5,000
may be perfectly normal.
In order to determine whether a problem
exists, trends and details must be examined.
What has the balance of your Receivables
been in the past – is the balance increasing
every month? How old are your receivables?
Examine your detailed accounts receivable
listing to determine if balances are approaching (or have exceeded) the prescribed lien
expiration period, for example 90-days
in Ontario as prescribed by the Ontario
Condominium Act (“the Act”) in Section
85(2). If so, have these arrears been
secured through the Registration of a
Lien? Are the same owners consistently
late every month and do some owners
carry one or two month balances on a
consistent basis? This may result in difficulties paying the corporation’s expenses and
in some cases force the corporation to fall
into overdraft, resulting in additional bank
charges and interest. Why should the
majority of owners, those that do pay on
time, have to cover additional bank charges
and interest paid by the corporation (through
increased common element fees in the next
budget) as a result of a handful of owners
that don’t pay on time?
Interest and Late Fees
When owners don’t pay their condo fees on
time, it costs the corporation money – either
in lost interest income or additional interest
expenses and bank charges. In the long
run, this results in higher common element
fees, costing all owners more money.
In order to alleviate this, the corporation has
the power to charge interest and late fees
for unpaid common fees and/or special
assessments. The interest and late fees not
only offset the loss that the corporation
incurs as a result of the late payments, it also
acts as a deterrent to owners in the future.
Let’s face it – if an owner can only afford
$300 this month and must choose between
paying down their credit card balance,
which carries an interest rate of over 20%,
or their condo fees carrying an interest rate
of Nil%, which will they choose? They may
choose differently if their condo corporation
charges a late fee of $10.00 and interest at
a rate of 24% per year.
It should be noted however that the power
to charge interest and late fees is not inherent. In Ontario, it must be legally documented in the declaration. Failing this, a
by-law must be passed and ratified by the
owners and should be communicated to all
owners prior to being implemented.
Change Your Lien Policy
As previously mentioned, in Ontario the Act
specifies a maximum of three months before
a Certificate of Lien must be registered
against a unit in order to secure arrears.
Specific timing in other provinces may vary.
The legal process of taking such action involves a significant cost (it can be in excess
of $1,000 for the registration of a Lien),
however as this cost is fully recoverable
from the owner – Section 85 (3)(c) of the
Act in Ontario – the threat of a lien generally
results in the collection of all arrears.
However, we continually see repeat owners
receive a Notice of Lien (the “threat” letter)
and pay off their arrears before a lien is
registered. In paying their arrears, they
avoid the Lien registration cost and know that
another Notice of Lien will not be issued
for 3 months. Three months later, they have
made no payments and the process repeats
itself – threat letter, payment in full, 3 more
months before a payment is made. In the
meantime, the corporation must carry on
paying its bills on a regular basis with no
condo fees being received.
What’s worse, we often encounter owners
who “play the lien game”. That is, they
know the process of issuing a Notice of
Lien occurs as soon as they fall 3 months
in arrears. As such, they consistently carry
a balance of two months. They fail to pay
January and February. On March 1, they
pay their January fees. That way, they are
still only 2 months in arrears. On April 1,
they pay February. Again, only March and
April are outstanding so a Notice of Lien is
still not sent. In this sense, the corporation is
short two months common fees indefinitely.
In order to avoid this, Boards of Directors in
Ontario can choose a lien policy of less than
3 months – the maximum prescribed by
the Act. Section 85(1) indicates that “if
an owner defaults in the obligation to
contribute to the common expenses, the
corporation has a lien against the owner’s
unit…” There is no minimum time period
specified. (Again, legislation in other
provinces may vary – be sure to obtain
advice from your legal counsel). By decreasing the lien policy to 60 (or even 30)
days, the gap between default of payment
and the commencement of collection
activity is shortened. The result is fewer
accounts receivables, less stress on the
corporate bank account and more interest
income / less interest expense and service
charges for the condo.
Jeff Lack, BAcc, CGA
Accounting Supervisor
Wilson, Blanchard Management Inc.
Hamilton, ON
CCI REVIEW |
SPRING 2011
| 5
Volunteer Month - April
IT’S SPRING….
…and our thoughts automatically turn to:
volunteers!
in the summer of 2010. When asked how
they benefitted from their involvement in
CCI, members cited:
• Writing (organizations are almost always
looking for skilled people to write articles
for newsletters or their websites)
While not necessarily as traditional as
thoughts of warmer weather, barbeques
and (of course) love, thoughts of volunteers
are critical to the success of all volunteerdriven organizations across Canada. So
much so, in fact, that the week of April 1016, 2011 has been designated as the 68th
annual National Volunteer Week in Canada.
In fact, in some countries, they recognize
April as a national volunteer month, and the
United Nations set aside all of 2001 as the
International Year of Volunteers.
• Greater understanding of the industry
• Speaking on behalf of the organization
(reaching out to others in the community is
important to virtually all organizations,
and many do this by offering qualified
speakers to other groups)
The decision to volunteer for a specific
organization is usually an individual one –
you find an organization whose mission
or objectives resonate with you, and you
decide to help it. Where that organization
is CCI, we definitely appreciate your
participation – you have helped make us
what we have become today.
But did you realize that there is a “bigger
picture” for volunteering, and you are part
of it? Nationally, according to Volunteers
Canada, some 12.5 million Canadians
volunteer their time and efforts – nearly half
our population! In 1999, according to a
study conducted by Johns Hopkins
University and funded by the Government
of Canada, the value of work provided by
volunteers for non-profit organizations
equaled about 1.4% of our gross domestic
product (GDP), or some $14 billion; this
supported the contribution of those organizations to the GDP of over $61 billion,
for a total of $75 billion. When you equate
this volunteer effort to full-time employment,
it’s equal to just over 1 million full-time jobs.
In fact, Canada’s volunteer sector is
the second largest in the world (only
the Netherlands’ is larger). That’s a big
picture indeed!
Why do people volunteer? We’ve already
cited the importance they attribute to
the organization for which they volunteer.
There is also the knowledge that they’ve
made a contribution to something that
matters to them. However, our own volunteers said it best, in a survey conducted
6
• Opportunities for ongoing education
• Better understanding of corporate
governance and the role and function of
Boards
• Chance to influence legislation
• Improved understanding of legislation
• Networking
• Developed speaking and communications
skills
• Increased self-confidence
• Better problem solving skills
• Becoming more professional
• Better able to chair Board/Committee
meetings
• Improved abilities as a teacher
• Dealing with difficult people
• Better development of management
skills
• And many more…
As you can see, there are many benefits
that people have discovered through
volunteering. We hope you will consider
them the next time someone asks you if
you would like to volunteer.
What are the volunteer opportunities?
They vary from organization to organization,
but some common ones include:
• Serving on a Board of Directors (governing and directing the organization)
• Becoming an Officer of an organization
(President, Vice President, Treasurer, etc.)
• Being a Committee member, or helping
on a Committee project
• Being a Task Force member (task forces
differ from Committees in that they
are usually of a shorter, and defined
duration, and are often focused on a specific activity)
| SPRING 2011 | C C I R EVI EW
• Fundraising (some organizations look for
community financial support through
fundraising drives, and the assistance of
volunteers is critical to their success)
Do volunteers make a difference? We can
only talk about CCI; some of the things
you and your fellow volunteers have made
possible are:
• The quarterly national newsletter, CCI
Review
• Chapter newsletters
• The ongoing revision of our premier
credential, the ACCI
• The development of Chapter education
materials (Condo 100, etc.)
• Chapter seminars, workshops and webinars
• Lobbying on condominium issues
These, and many other, volunteer activities
have helped CCI deliver on its mission to
lead the condominium industry by providing
education, awareness and expertise. We
couldn’t have done it without you; we are
only as strong as the volunteer support we
receive. So, once again, on behalf of CCI
National and Chapter Boards, thank you
for your commitment and hard work
(and from the CCI National Office and the
members at large, thank you to those of
you who have given your time and efforts
by serving on the National and Chapter
Boards – without you, we simply would
not exist). We hope you will continue to
volunteer, both for CCI and for other
organizations you deem worthy. Your work,
and the work of others like you, help make
our organizations stronger, and our country
a better place to live.
R O N A L D S . DA N KS , B . A . , H o n s , L L . B , AC C I , F C C I
Something Smells
Second hand smoke, cooking odours,
chemical smells, car exhaust, garbage,
pet odours, and incense are just a few of
the odours that we may be subjected to
in condominiums. Sometimes these odours
come from external sources beyond the
control of the condominium such as
exhaust fumes from a nearby highway.
However, when these odours come
from inside the condominium, whether
caused by the condominium or one of
its residents, the condominium may have
an obligation to take steps to eliminate
or at least reduce them. Whether such
an obligation exists depends upon a
number of factors such as:
• Does the odour constitute an ongoing
“nuisance” or is it merely an occasional
annoyance;
• Is the odour caused by something that
could be considered a health hazard;
• Does the person complaining about
the odour have a legitimate complaint
or are they over sensitive;
• Is it affecting more than one unit; and
• Is it fixable?
Most condominiums will have a rule that
prohibits owners from causing a “nuisance”. Typically this is the rule that the
condominium will rely on when dealing
with a unit owner who through some act
or omission is causing an odour that
offends other owners. However, at law
proving that someone is causing a nuisance is not as easy as one may think.
The general test to determine whether
the tort of nuisance has occurred was
expressed in the British Columbia case
of Kenny v. Schuster Real Estate Co.
(1990). A person is considered to have
committed a nuisance when he or she
is found to be, “…responsible for an act
indirectly causing physical injury to land
or substantially interfering with the use
and enjoyment of land or an interest in
land, where in light of all the surrounding circumstances, this injury or interference is held to be unreasonable.”
In this case, Ms. Kenny purchased a
condominium unit located one floor
above a ground floor commercial unit
also owned by Schuster that was being
used as a restaurant. She was assured
by the vendor, Schuster, that there
would be no serious odour issues as
there was to be no cooking in the
restaurant as it only served “light food”
In fact she admitted that she initially had
no problem with odours when on her
deck. However, after several weeks she
invasion must be substantial and serious
and of a nature that it is clear according
to the accepted concepts of the day
that it should be an actionable wrong.”
Ultimately the Judge held that the
installation of the fan, “…was a gross
interference with the comfort and
enjoyment of her condominium over a
period of approximately one year…”. He
awarded her $25,557.45, in damages
plus all of her legal expenses.
To prove a nuisance one has to prove
that the interference was “substantial”,
“serious” and “unreasonable”.
arrived home to find a crane dropping a
large exhaust fan on to the roof of the
restaurant which was then installed
immediately below her deck and below
her living room doors and dining room
windows. She contacted the vendor
and was assured the fan would not
impact on her. As soon as the fan was
installed Ms. Kenny found it almost
impossible to use her deck as she found
the noise from the fan as well as the
odour of cooking, grease and smoke to
be overpowering. Eventually she sold at
slightly lower price than she had paid for
the unit and sued Shuster under the tort
of nuisance. In a 29 page decision the
Judge reviewed the tort of nuisance and
particularly the test referred to above.
He determined that the test was, “…has
the defendant’s use of this land interfered with the use and enjoyment of the
plaintiff’s land and is that interference
unreasonable?”
In determining what constituted an invasion
of an interest in land the Judge stated,
“It is certainly not every smell, whiff of
smoke, sound of machinery or music
which will entitle an indignant plaintiff
to recover. It is impossible to lay down
precise and detailed standards but the
To prove a nuisance one has to prove
that the interference was “substantial”,
“serious” and “unreasonable”. The
author suggests that this may be no
easy task and as such so called “nuisance” rules should be expanded to
prohibit, “… sound, odour, vibration or a
nuisance that in the sole discretion of
the board of directors, is disturbing,
annoying or interferes with the use and
enjoyment of the common elements or
units by the residents…” . This removes
the need in most cases to prove the tort
of nuisance when dealing with a simple
case of, for example, a cooking odour
that is annoying to a few residents.
The author suggests that the outcome
of the Kenny case would have been no
different if it had been the strata corporation that had given permission to have
the fan installed by the restaurant. In
another British Columbia case, Bond v.
The Owners, Strata Plan Vr2538,
(1996), a new owner purchased a unit
that happened to be located directly
above a common element spa area that
included a large Jacuzzi. However, when
she purchased the unit the Jacuzzi was
not operable. Several months after she
moved in, the board of the strata had the
CCI REVIEW |
SPRING 2011
| 7
Jacuzzi repaired. Almost immediately the
unit owner began to complain about excessive noise from the Jacuzzi and the
voices of people using it as well as an
overpowering smell of chlorine in her unit.
In response to her complaints they did
have a consultant look at the room and
he suggested a sound isolation membrane may address the issue but could
not predict whether it would solve the
problem entirely. As a result the board
simply put time limits on the use of the
Jacuzzi so it could not be operated late
at night or early in the morning. They did
nothing to address the chlorine smell.
Using the oppression remedy available
to strata owners at the time, (very similar
to Ontario’s oppression remedy) the
owner sued the strata corporation.
There was no claim made under the tort
of nuisance as in the Kenny case but the
reasoning of the Judge was very similar.
In this case the Judge determined that
the power given to the corporation by
the Condominium Act to manage and
administer the common elements for the
benefit of all the owners did not in his
opinion, “...give a license to the corporation to permit one part of its common
assets to be operated in a way which
unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of one member’s separate property.
I emphasize “unreasonably”. He found
that the evidence showed that, “the
interference here is beyond what an
individual owner should be prepared to
accept.” Finding that he had no authority
to order the strata corporation to install the
sound membrane or take other remedial
steps he, with “reluctance”, ordered the
strata corporation to shut down the
Jacuzzi and awarded her legal expenses.
If the source of a disturbing odour or
noxious substance is coming from the
common elements the condominium
must investigate the matter and determine
whether steps can be taken to eliminate
it or at least minimize it. Consultants
who specialize in this area should be
used if the source or the reason it is
penetrating a hallway or unit is not readily
apparent. Not too long ago this author
was contacted by a condominium corporation who were receiving complaints
from a unit owner over second hand
smoke penetrating her unit apparently
coming from the unit next door whose
owner was a heavy smoker. The board
wanted to know if they had any responsibility to deal with the issue or whether
it was a “personal” matter between the
two owners. In reading the material sent
to us it was clear the smoke was coming in
through a vent located on the common
wall between the units. The intensity
of the smoke seemed to taper off
later into the evening. Putting two and
two together we called the manager and
asked whether the air pressurization
system for the building was working
properly. He responded, “yes…when it
is on”. It turns out the board had instructed the superintendent to turn off the
system between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
to save the cost of the energy. This
action not only exposed the condominium to a potential law suit but we
understand they may also have been in
breach of the fire code.
Cooking odours and second hand
smoke are likely the two most frequent
complaints when it comes to odour
penetration problems. However, most
cooking odours would not be considered
a serious health risk. Condominium
boards should not take complaints
about second hand smoke bothering
other residents lightly.
Not too long ago the Smoke Free
Ontario Act came into force. This Act
prohibits smoking anywhere inside the
common elements of the condominium
including hallways, party rooms, underground garages and any other enclosed
areas such as stand alone clubhouses.
It does not prohibit smoking within a unit
or on the external common elements. It
does not prohibit smoking on exclusive
use balconies or rear decks or front
porches unless the area has somehow
been enclosed.
Can a condominium corporation in
Ontario ban smoking in units? An
outright prohibition against smoking in
units might be enforceable if it was
included in the Declaration of the
condominium corporation. There are
many good arguments to be made that
such a restriction should be enforced:
• Smoke drifts from suites, balconies
and outside areas, into units, despite
all best efforts to limit the migration of
smoke;
• Tobacco smoke contains many toxins
including carcinogens with no safe
levels of exposure;
8
| SPRING 2011 | C C I R EVI EW
• Many non-smokers, including tenants,
guests, landlords, employees and
service workers in the condominium
suffer adverse health consequences
caused by drifting tobacco smoke;
• Smoking tobacco in units, which
includes balconies and patios,
increases the risk of fire, death, injury
and damage to the property;
• Condominiums that allow non-smoking
residents to be exposed to known
health risks may be considered to
have failed to provide “quiet enjoyment” of the unit.
We already know that there are a number of condominium corporations and
community associations in the United
States that have a strict no-smoking
program in effect throughout all of the
units and common areas. To date, they
have been successful in enforcing such
restrictions. Can this work in Ontario?
Quite possibly, yes, especially if a
Declarant initiated the process by putting such a restriction in the Declaration
for a new condominium, as well as fully
disclosing it to prospective purchasers.
In fact, the author would suggest that
such a building would likely sell out very
quickly to health conscious buyers
especially those who may have small
children or who suffer from asthma or
some other breathing problems.
Can a no-smoking rule be created? It is
this author’s opinion that rule preventing
smoking within a unit would not likely be
enforceable as that would be considered
a significant “restriction” on an owner’s
use of their unit. Such a restriction would
have to be contained in the declaration
to stand a chance of being enforceable.
It may be possible that a Rule prohibiting smoking on balconies or exclusive
use decks might stand up to a challenge
that it was unreasonable and not made in
accordance with the Act. Section 58 of
the Act stipulates that a board may make
Rules to “promote the … welfare of the
owners …” and to prevent the “unreasonable interference with the use and
enjoyment of the common elements, the
units, or the assets of the corporation.”
However, since most condominiums already have a general nuisance rule, (see
our comments regarding expanding the
rule) they could rely on that to deal with
a homeowner whose smoking habits
detrimentally affect adjoining owners. Exposing someone to second hand smoke
should certainly be considered as being
an “unreasonable interference” with the
use of adjoining units and common
elements. This would be no different than
if a homeowner was exposing a neighbour to some other form of toxic or hazardous substance.
Another issue to be determined is if a no
smoking rule was established, how can
one enforce it? It would be unreasonable to suggest that the corporation or
other units. Some religions require the
burning of incense or scented wood
during religious ceremonies and prayers.
In one condominium we dealt with, incense from daily religious ceremonies
was disturbing one of the adjoining
units. Oddly no one else was bothered
by it nor could it be detected in the
hallway unless the unit door was open.
Forcing the unit owner who was using
the incense to stop would likely have
constituted a Human Rights violation, as
In some instances there will simply be
no way to satisfy an overly sensitive owner
who is complaining about strange odours
that most people would find tolerable.
its manager undertake daily inspections
of each unit to try to determine whether
anyone is smoking in them or on the
balcony/deck. As such a rule prohibiting
smoking on the common elements
would have to be premised on a “complaints” driven basis. In other words, the
corporation is not required to be proactive in searching out second hand
smoke, but rather react to complaints
made by unit owners if they believe it is
affecting their health or is substantially
interfering with the use and enjoyment
of the common elements or their unit.
such the condominium board and
management was very careful in how
the issue was dealt with, emphasizing to
the owner that they were not being
asked to stop, merely to allow the
condominium to investigate why the
smell of the incense was migrating into
the next door unit. Upon investigation
several gaps were discovered in the
common wall separating the units where
some conduit penetrated the wall and
around some electrical outlets. Once
these were plugged the problem was
largely resolved.
There may be other options available to
deal with odour issues. As an example,
what if the reason for the odour migrating
to other units is because of an inadequate
ventilation system in a high-rise development? What if the smoke is penetrating
because the walls between the units
have access points where the smoke
can migrate such as around electrical
outlets, pipes or conduits that have not
been sealed properly? In those instances
where common element defects or old
style construction methods are the
cause the onus may be on the condominium corporation to deal with the
problem. Consider whether the smoking
homeowner should be asked to install
air cleansers to help rid the unit of the
smoke before it can migrate? That may
be another tool to use in an attempt to
resolve a second hand smoke issue, or
other odours migrating from a unit.
In some instances there will simply be
no way to satisfy an overly sensitive
owner who is complaining about
strange odours that most people would
find tolerable. While not dealing with
odour issues the case of Yashar v.
Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 434 and Nigel Brown,
(2006) involved an overly sensitive unit
owner who complained continually
about the loud noises coming from the
adjoining unit belonging to Mr. Brown
who had three teenage sons. Mr. Yashar
had police attend at Mr. Brown’s unit
over a dozen times and claimed that Mr.
Brown and his sons caused excessive
noise over 60% of the time causing him
to lose sleep and seek medical attention.
Mr. Yashar had sued the condominium
corporation on the basis that it had
failed to enforce the condominium’s
“nuisance” rule against Mr. Brown.
On occasion we have seen complaints
involving the use of incense or nontobacco related smoke migrating to
Mr. Brown defended himself by pointing
out that despite the numerous attendances
of police he had not once been cited or
warned and in every case the police had
CCI REVIEW |
SPRING 2011
| 9
found no reason to intervene. He pointed
out how he taken steps to ensure his sons
didn’t cause excessive noise, including
mounting their stereo on rubber cleats. He
produced an affidavit from the previous
owner of the unit which indicated that she
too had been harassed by Mr. Yashar over
noise from her unit to the point that she
sold her unit to escape him.
In reviewing the issue of whether a
nuisance had occurred the Judge
referred to a noted authority on Tort law
who had summarized the law of
nuisance as follows, “The question in
every case is not whether the individual
plaintiff suffers what he regards as a
substantial discomfort or inconvenience,
but whether the reasonable man who
resides in that locality would take the
same view of the matter. The reasonable
man connotes a person whose notions
and standards of behavior and responsibility correspond with those generally
obtained among ordinary people in our
society at the present time, who seldom
allows emotion to overbear his reason
and whose habits are moderate and
whose disposition is equitable.”
The Judge found that Mr. Yashar had not
provided any evidence that Mr. Brown’s behavior was anything but normal or that the
level of noise coming from his unit was unreasonable. He dismissed the claim against
Mr. Brown concluding that, “This is unfortunately a circumstance where neighbours
simply have different tolerance levels…”.
He also dismissed the claim against the
condominium finding that it had done
everything it could to try to mediate the dispute between the parties. He made a small
award of $400.00 costs to each of Mr.
Brown and the condominium. We suggest
that the decision in the Yashar case would
be equally applicable to a situation where
an owner was complaining about odours
that the average resident would not find to
be unreasonable.
may have a detrimental effect on the
health of one or more owners or substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment
of their unit or common element. However, these duties would be tempered by
the “reasonable man” test in that if the
matter complained of would not be considered by a “reasonable” person, such
as other owners or board members, to be
something that would interfere substantially with the use and enjoyment of their
unit or common element, then there may
be no legal obligation to deal with the
issue. As stated in the Kenny case, “…not
every smell (or) whiff of smoke...” will be
considered a nuisance
In summary it would appear that a
condominium corporation has duty to
investigate complaints about odours
or other “nuisance” type complaints.
Depending upon the severity of the issue
there may be an additional duty to take
steps to physically address the cause of
the odour. The onus to address the issue
would be greater where the substance
Ronald S. Danks, B.A., Hons. LL.B,
ACCI, FCCI. Ron is a partner in the
Hamilton/Burlington, Ontario, business
law firm of SimpsonWigle Law LLP.
He has practiced for over 25 years in
the area of condominium law and
administration.
email: danksr@simpsonwigle.com
CCI IS ON
FACEBOOK!
Keep up to date on what’s
happening across the country
with CCI by becoming a fan.
Search:
Canadian Condominium Institute
– National Office
The more fans…the more
condominium information that
we’ll get out there.
BECOME A FAN TODAY!!
10
| SPRING 2011 | C C I R EVI EW
K A R E N R E Y N O L D S , AC C I , F C C I , R C M , A I H M
Bedbugs
What could possibly be worse to deal
with as a member of the board than a mysterious water leak into a unit where the
source just cannot be located? If you are
following articles and stories recently reported in the media, you will know the answer is “bedbugs.” So why would a unit
infested with bedbugs be a problem to the
Board of Directors? Simple, once a unit
has become infected, if not treated, how
long will it be before other units are affected or worse, your common elements?
Imagine this scenario. A homeowner returns
from vacation unknowingly carrying bed
bugs in their luggage. They employ a cleaning company to clean their home and one
week later the cleaning staff enter the home
to clean using their own vacuums, mops
and dusters. This same company is employed by the condominium and the same
staff visit your building the next day to clean
the common areas or they could be employed by a unit owner and visit a unit to
clean. In their equipment, they now are unknowingly transporting the bedbugs to your
building or townhouse complex.
It is important to educate yourselves and
then pass the information on to your residents and assure them that in the event
their unit becomes infected, it is nothing to
be ashamed of as it in no way indicates the
unit is not clean or that their housekeeping
habits are not sufficient. It just means they
are human and can provide a source of
nourishment to these little nuisances. Bedbugs are completely impartial and are
happy to inhabit any dwelling where a food
source is evident!
Bedbugs are insects that, as adults, are
approximately 1/4 inch long and have an
oval body with no wings. Prior to feeding,
their bodies are flat but after a feed the body
turns dark red in colour and becomes
bloated. Adults prefer to feed on human
blood but will also bite other mammals and
birds. They feed at night and will bite all over
the human body particularly around the
face, neck, upper torso, arms and hands.
Both male and female bugs will bite and
either can survive several months without
feeding. An average bed bug may survive
several months to a year. Their eggs are
whitish in colour, pear shaped and about the
size of the head of a pin. When laid, the
eggs have a sticky coating and can be
found in clusters in cracks and crevices and,
are you ready for this…during her one year
life span a female can lay between 200 and
400 eggs which will hatch every six to
seventeen days. Bedbugs will migrate from
unit to unit via pipes or electrical wiring.
As inferred in the scenario presented above,
bedbugs enter dwellings on objects,
clothing, equipment, furniture, luggage,
etc. Once introduced into an environment
they will inhabit the seams, creases,
and folds of mattresses, box springs or
curtains, any cracks in bedframes or plaster,
in electrical appliances such as clocks,
radios or telephones, behind baseboards,
or any other small enclosed space. Adults
may be evident in these areas indicated by
black and/or brown spots on mattresses or
sheets, bedframes or walls or shells from
dead or moulting bugs might be found.
Educating owners is the first step in
combating these pests and part of that
education should definitely include ensuring
they provide notification to the board
should their unit become affected. When
residents report an infestation they should
be encouraged to have the unit inspected
and treated by a professional company
rather than attempting to rid the problem
themselves. The process can be quite
costly and is not a corporation responsibility
unless common areas are involved however
to ensure adequate treatment the corporation may wish to work with the unit owner
throughout the process which could involve
several attempts to remove the pests. It is
not necessary to single out any specific unit
however, other owners/residents should also
be notified that bedbugs are evident within
the corporation and that they should be taking precautions and until the unit or common
areas have been treated and pronounced
“clean” disclosure should be made in any
status certificate issued for an affected unit
or if common areas are involved a notation
made in that respect as well. Boards are well
advised to obtain advice from their legal experts with respect to appropriate wording.
If residents are properly educated you will
reduce the risk of additional units being
affected. Information could include ways of
preventing bedbugs from infesting a home
such as vacuuming mattresses regularly,
picking up clutter to reduce places where
bedbugs might inhabit, discarding vacuum
bags instead of reusing them, resisting
the introduction of used items into the
home unless they have been thoroughly
inspected or the occupant is familiar with
the environment articles came from and if
traveling, thoroughly inspecting any hotel
rooms upon arrival including the mattress
and keeping luggage up off of the floor.
Residents could also be schooled in
where to look for evidence and what signs
indicate the presence of bugs.
Hopefully sharing information with residents
and encouraging them to inspect their living
areas and report any suspicious findings
will reduce or even possibly eliminate any
infestations in your corporations. However,
should a corporation encounter a difficult
owner who refuses to cooperate, you,
as members of the board, do have the
authority through the Act and/or your documents to enter the unit , upon provision of
reasonable notice, and address any infestation found within and any charges incurred
can be charged back to the unit owner.
We know this problem is real as we have
experienced infestations in a few of the
units we manage. Take it seriously, educate
yourselves and then educate your owners
because the sooner a problem is discovered and treated, the less chance there will
be of a major infestation.
Karen Reynolds, ACCI, FCCI, RCM, AIHM
Director of Property Management
Wilson Blanchard Management Inc.
www.wilsonblanchard.com
CCI REVIEW |
SPRING 2011
| 11
BY J A M E S DAV I D S O N , L L . B . , AC C I , F C C I
Condo Cases
across Canada
ISSUE NO. 33
It is my pleasure to provide these brief summaries of recent condominium Court decisions across
Canada. I don’t provide summaries of every decision rendered. I select a handful of decisions that
I hope readers will find interesting. I hope readers enjoy this regular column of the CCI Review.
Note to readers: In B.C., condominium corporations are “strata corporations”
and in Quebec, condominium corporations are “syndicats”.
THE HOT TOPIC:
IMPORTANT REALTY ASSESSMENT DECISION IN ONTARIO: NON-COMMON
ELEMENT RECREATION CENTRE ASSESSED AT NOMINAL VALUE OF $1.00
Condominium common elements are generally not subject to separate realty assessment and taxation.
But what about assets of the condominium corporation – not part of the common elements –
such as a recreation centre owned in whole or in part by the corporation? How should these sorts of
assets be treated for purposes of realty assessment and taxation? Most condominium corporations have
felt that the value of these sorts of assets is included in the value of the units. [For example, in the case of a
recreation centre, the purchase price for a unit normally takes into account the purchaser’s right to make use
of the recreation centre.] In other words, the value of the condominium corporation’s assets is generally
included in the value of each of the units. Assuming that’s the case, taxation of the
assets would amount to double taxation.
However, assessment authorities have often taken the position that the assets of a condominium corporation are subject
to taxation, because they can be sold on the open market. And the assessment authorities have often asserted that
the value of a condominium corporation’s asset is not necessarily included in the values of the units.
A recent decision of Ontario’s Assessment Review Board will have condominium directors nodding their heads:
Schickedanz Bros. Limited v. The
Municipal Property Assessment
Corporation (MPAC) Region No. 14
and the Town of Whitchurch –
Stouffville (Assessment Review
Board) November 5, 2010
tion year and $1,740,000 for the 2006 and
2007 taxation years. The recreation centre
contained an indoor salt water pool, whirlpool, sauna, games rooms, fitness room and
party room for social activities, as well as an
outside patio and tennis courts.
this right (included in the value of the
residential units). Then, the assessed
value of the recreation centre had to
be reduced by the amount of that
“added value”. [The idea was to avoid
double taxation.]
Non-common element recreation centre assessed at nominal value of $1.00
The Assessment Review Board (ARB) reduced the assessed value of the recreation centre to the nominal amount of
$1.00, for the following reasons:
2. The ARB then found that the “added
value” was the full value of the recreation centre.
This case dealt with the realty assessment
and taxation of a recreation centre which was
to be shared by five condominium corporations surrounding a golf course. [The golf
course was separately owned by the developer.] The recreation centre was an asset of
the condominium corporations and had been
assessed at $1,460,000 for the 2005 taxa12
1. Each of the unit owners had an easement over the recreation centre. In
other words, each unit interest
included the right to use the recreation
centre. The ARB’s task, then, was
to determine the “added value” of
| SPRING 2011 | C C I R EVI EW
In summary, the Assessment Review
Board decided that the value of the recreation centre was already contained in the
value of the residential units.
The ARB’s decision included the following:
Some evidence that the RC value is within
the residential unit values is the simple
fact that Schickedanz is transferring the
RC to the five condominium corporations
for zero consideration. Having no evidence
that Schickedanz is a charitable corporation,
the Board deduces only two possibilities.
One is that the RC is being given away
because it has no market value; or second
that the RC has already been paid for through
the sale of the residential units. Either one
leads to the conclusion that the assessment of
the RC should be zero.
[Editorial Note: There was no appeal.
This decision is final.]
B.C. CASES
Chan v. Strata Plan VR-151
(British Columbia Supreme Court)
December 3, 2010
The tree has grown too tall
Strata Plan VR-151 is a 4-storey, 40-unit
strata property. The ground floor apartment
includes a patio area. The upper boundary of
the patio area is the extended height of the
ceiling of the unit. Above this boundary is
common property. A cedar tree, on the patio
of the ground floor unit, had grown to the full
height of the building. The strata counsel ultimately passed a by-law requiring trees to be
pruned to the boundaries of an owner’s strata
lot. In other words, trees were not to extend
beyond the boundaries of the unit. Pruning
this particular tree to this level (approximately
one quarter of its present height) would likely
result in the tree dying. The owner of the unit
(the owner of the tree) applied for a declaration that the strata corporation’s actions, including the passing of the by-law, were
significantly unfair, within the meaning of Section 164 of the Strata Property Act. The Court
disagreed. The Court found that there was
no significant unfairness, and that the by-law
had been validly enacted and could be applied to the tree at issue.
However, the Court added that the
enforcement of the by-law might involve
significant unfairness. In that regard, the
Court said:
Having said that, any specific steps the strata
corporation may take to enforce its by-law will
still be subject to review under s. 164. In that
regard, I note again that this tree was permitted to grow far beyond the boundaries of the
petitioner’s strata lot long before the present
by-law was enacted and, indeed, long before
the petitioner acquired her unit. Trimming
such a large tree to the extent now required
by the bylaw, or removing it entirely, is likely
to be an expensive undertaking. It may be
significantly unfair for the strata corporation
to impose that cost, or the cost of suitable
If a meeting is
adjourned to an
unspecified date and
time, full notice of the
new date and time
(once they are chosen)
is of course required.
replacement planting, entirely on the petitioner. In the absence of evidence of the
specific costs and options involved, I express
no conclusion on that point, but mention it for
the guidance of the parties in their future
dealings.
[Editorial Note: The Court seems to
be saying, in the above paragraph, that although the tree must be trimmed back to
the boundaries of the strata lot (or
removed), the strata corporation should
perhaps cover the cost.]
Strata Plan NW 971 v. Daniels
(British Columbia Court of Appeal)
December 20, 2010
Special resolution properly passed
at adjourned meeting
The plaintiff strata lot owner challenged the
procedures followed by the strata council to
pass a special resolution authorizing a special
assessment. A special general meeting had
been properly called, with notice, for this purpose. A quorum of eligible voters (in person
and by proxy) was present at the meeting.
However, the special resolution failed to obtain the requisite three-quarters majority vote.
A resolution was then passed to adjourn the
meeting for one week (ie. to reconvene one
week later at the same time and place). The
special resolution was passed at the “continuation of the first meeting”. No fresh notice
of meeting (14 days in advance of the meeting, per Section 45 of the Strata Property
Act) was provided in relation to the continuation meeting.
The Court held that the continuation meeting was proper and the special resolution
was valid and effective. The Court said
that a continuation of an original meeting
does not require any further notice provided no new business is transacted at
the adjourned/continuation meeting.
[Editorial Note: If a meeting is adjourned
to an unspecified date and time, full notice of the new date and time (once they
are chosen) is of course required. No
fresh notice of a continuation meeting is
required provided:
a) The original meeting is properly called
and properly convened (with required
quorum); and
b) A motion is passed, at the original
meeting, to adjourn the meeting to a
fixed date and time.]
Azura Management (Kelowna) Corp.
v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS
2428 (British Columbia Court of
Appeal) October 28, 2010
Residential and non-residential lots
to vote separately under Section 128
of Strata Property Act
This strata property contained 491 residential strata lots and 4 non-residential strata lots.
According to Section 128 of the Strata Property Act, a by-law would require separate
resolutions, one passed by a ¾ vote of the
residential strata lots, and one passed by a
3/4 vote of the non-residential strata lots. This
would effectively give the owners of the 4
non-residential strata lots voting entitlement
(in relation to by-laws) which was equal to the
voting entitlement of the owners of the 491
strata lots. The chambers judge felt that this
created the potential for significantly unfair or
oppressive voting and therefore ordered,
under Section 164 of the Strata Property Act,
that the residential and non-residential lot
owners vote together as a single group.
On appeal, the order of the chamber’s
judge was reversed. The Court of Appeal
said that the potential for oppression was not
sufficient to overcome the voting mechanism
set forth in the Strata Property Act.
ALBERTA CASES
Condominium Corporation
No. 0321365 v. 970365 Alberta Ltd.
et al (Court of Queen’s Bench of
Alberta) September 09, 2010
Developer’s lender has no
duty of care to purchasers or
condominium corporation
The condominium corporation and unit
purchasers asserted claims for alleged
faulty construction against a large number of
defendants, including MCAP Financial Corporation. MCAP provided interim mortgage
financing to the developer of the project.
The Court found that MCAP owed no duty
of care to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs
accordingly had no basis for claim against
MCAP.
The Owners Condominium
Corporation No. 0825873 v. 1246153
Alberta Ltd. (Alberta Court of Queen’s
Bench) November 18, 2010
CCI REVIEW |
SPRING 2011
| 13
Developer not exempt from paying
condominium fees
The condominium corporation brought an
action for recovery of arrears of condominium fees in relation to the developer’s
unsold units. The developer said that there
was a special reduced fee arrangement for
the developer’s units. The developer also
claimed various set-offs for amounts
allegedly paid by the developer on behalf
of the condominium corporation.
The Court held that the condominium corporation was entitled to be paid the full amount
claimed. Any alleged fee arrangement (for
reduction of the developer’s condominium
fees) was void. The claims for set-off were
also dismissed.
OTHER ONTARIO
CASES:
Chan v. Toronto Standard
Condominium Corporation No. 1834
(Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
January 6, 2011
Rules required that units be used
only as single family residences
Owner also responsible for all of
the damage resulting from water
escape. Corporation could lien for
recovery of these amounts
The condominium corporation’s rules required that each unit be occupied and used
only as a private single family residence. The
Court noted that the meaning of the term
“family” had been decided in the case of
Nipissing Condominium Corporation No. 4
vs. Kilfoyl. [See Condo Cases Across
Canada - Part 28, November 2009, and Part
30, May 2010.] Therefore, the occupants of
each unit had to be related. Furthermore,
because of provisions in the corporation’s
14
declaration and rules, the owner was not
permitted to place any additional locks on
any doors (to or within the unit) without first
obtaining the written approval of the Board.
And if approval was given, the owner had to
then provide the corporation with a key to
the changed or additional lock.
Water had also escaped from the unit (from
the water valve servicing the toilet), causing
damage to the unit below. The damage to
the unit below totaled approximately
$8,500, including about $3,600 damage
to improvements. The deductible on the
corporation’s insurance policy was $5,000,
which exceeded the amount of damage to
the standard unit. The Court held that the
owner of the unit with the leaky toilet valve
was responsible for all of the damage by
virtue of provisions of the corporation’s
declaration and Section 92 of the Act. The
corporation’s lien for such amounts was
valid and proper.
[Editorial Note #1: The corporation’s
governing documents did not contain any
definition of family. Even so, the Court
was prepared to apply the definition of
family from the Nipissing Condominium
Corporation No. 4 v. Kilfoyl case.]
[Editorial Note#2: The decision contains
no mention of an insurance deductibles
by-law, pursuant to Section 105 of the
Condominium Act, 1998. Again, the Court
seemed to rely upon a provision in the
declaration, as well as Section 92 of the
Act. It seems to me that this aspect of the
decision (relating to responsibility for the
deductible) may be questionable.]
Durham Condominium Corporation
No. 63 v. On-Site Solutions Ltd.
(Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
December 2, 2010
| SPRING 2011 | C C I R EVI EW
Status certificate failed to disclose
unit defect
Durham Condominium No. 36 contains 35 industrial use units. The particular unit contained
an interior concrete block wall which served to
support the roof trusses. Originally, this
partition wall contained a doorway about
36 inches wide. At some undetermined point
in the past, the doorway had been widened
to 10 feet, without the knowledge or consent
of the condominium corporation. According
to the corporation’s declaration, this modification required the consent of the Board.
The unit was sold and the purchaser requested a status certificate. The status certificate did not disclose the problem.
In accordance with recommendations of an
engineer, the purchaser reinforced the 10foot opening by installing a steel lintel
across the top of the opening. However,
the condominium corporation wanted the
wall to be returned to its original condition.
The Court said that the status certificate
prevented the condominium corporation
from making this demand.
The timing of the corporation’s awareness or
knowledge of the modification was considered by the Court. In that regard, the decision
included the following key passage:
“Richard Duval, the President of the corporation, attended at the unit “for a routine
inspection” on or about October 24, 2008.
The common assumption during the argument was that he had inspected the unit
before he signed the status certificate on
October 22, 2008 on behalf of the corporation, but nothing turns on the discrepancy in the dates since the corporation had
time to correct it. Relying on the status certificate, the respondent (purchaser) closed
the transaction and took possession of the
unit on October 31, 2008.”
The owner sued under Section 55 of
the Condominium Act, 1998 for an order
entitling the owner to examine various
records of the corporation, and for a $500
penalty pursuant to Section 55. The Court
ordered the condominium corporation to
produce for examination some of the
requested records and also awarded the
owner $500. The Court’s decision
included the following:
Despite the repair efforts, leaks continued and the
condominium corporation ultimately agreed in
1998 to replace the roof in accordance with the
engineering firm’s recommendations.
[Editorial Note: This case stands for the
proposition that condominium corporations must disclose unit problems in any
status certificate for the unit. But surely
the condominium corporation is only obligated to disclose unit problems of which
the corporation is aware at the time the
status certificate is issued. This decision
seems to suggest that the condominium
corporation must issue a revised status
certificate if it gains relevant information
before the purchase transaction is
completed. I don’t agree. In my view, a
status certificate must reflect the corporation’s knowledge at the time the status
certificate is issued and the corporation
has no obligation to issue a revised status
certificate if new information comes to the
corporation’s attention after issuance of
the status certificate. It’s up to the purchaser to request a new status certificate,
if he or she wishes. I suppose a condominium corporation can always decide to
issue a revised status certificate, if it
wishes to do so, but this could also create problems (for example if purchase
conditions have been waived based upon
the previous certificate).]
Corchis v. Essex Condominium
Corporation No. 28 (Ontario Court
of Appeal) November 22, 2010
Condominium corporation primarily
liable for damage caused by roof leak
In 1994, the condominium’s roof was
leaking. Based upon advice from architects
and engineers, the condominium’s roofing
committee recommended that the roof be
replaced. The Board decided instead to
arrange for minor repairs to the roof, based
upon recommendations of the developer,
one of the owners (who was a retired engineer), and the third party, London Caulking
and Installations Limited.
Despite the repair efforts, leaks continued
and the condominium corporation ultimately
agreed in 1998 to replace the roof in
accordance with the engineering firm’s
recommendations. In the meantime, the leakage had caused significant damage to the
plaintiff unit owner. The Courts had previously concluded that the condominium corporation’s decision to delay replacement of
the roof was negligent – so that the
condominium corporation was liable to the
plaintiff owner. The Court then had to deal
with the third party action: namely, the
condominium corporation’s “claim over”
against London Caulking. The Court of
appeal held that London Caulking was
indeed partially liable for the plaintiff’s loss,
but the condominium corporation was
primarily liable. The Court of appeal said:
“We consider it reasonable to fix London
Caulking with responsibility for about
3 months out of the total 60 months of
delay”. As a result, London Caulking was
found responsible for 1/20th of the damages.
Lahrkamp v. Metropolitan
Condominium Corporation No. 932
(Toronto Small Clams Court)
October 29, 2010
Court determines owner’s right to
examine records. Owner receives
judgment for $500 plus costs
• Section 55(3) of the Act states that an
owner can examine records of the
corporation for purposes “reasonably
related to the purposes of the Act”.
However, not every request for documents must be accompanied by
reasons for the request. In some cases,
a reason (falling within the purposes of
the Act) may be self evident from the
surrounding facts, or may be reasonably inferred from the nature of the
record requested. The Court said: “It is
necessary to look at the facts surrounding each request to determine
whether the condominium corporation
had a reasonable excuse in not providing the records for examination.”
• The owner’s request for historical
accounting records respecting certain
lobby expenditures was refused because
the owner was on a pure “fishing expedition” without any evidence to support his
suspicion of impropriety. Given the weak
basis for the request, and the extensive
effort that would be required to assemble
those records, the Court felt that it was
reasonable to refuse this request.
• The Court also refused to grant the
owner’s request to see records relating
to his own unit, dating back to 2003.
The Court said that the condominium
corporation had a reasonable excuse to
deny these records “on the basis that a
general search would have been expensive and too time consuming” and
the owner had not given reasons to
counter the condominium corporation’s
position in denying the records.
• The owner was not entitled to the
corporation’s list of owners’ names and
addresses because Section 55(4)(c) of
the Act generally exempts the right to
examine records relating to specific
units or owners. “The plaintiff’s reason
for wanting the list was described as a
need to communicate with others” and
this reason was “clearly too vague and
infringes on the privacy rights of the
communal owners”.
• The owner was entitled to see the proxies
and ballots for the 2009 and 2010
AGMs. The owner was also entitled to
see minutes of the Board meetings and
to see notices of the corporation’s rules.
CCI REVIEW |
SPRING 2011
| 15
1420041 Ontario Inc. v. 1 King
West Inc. (Ontario Superior Court
of Justice – Divisional Court)
December 9, 2010
Condominium owner has no legal capacity
to assert claims respecting the common
elements. Owner’s claim respecting unit
damage stayed unless or until owner elects
to opt out of overlapping action by condo
corporation.
The condominium corporation had asserted claims with respect to alleged
common element deficiencies and
alleged unit deficiencies. An owner commenced its own claims with respect to
alleged common element deficiencies
and with respect to alleged deficiencies
in the owner’s unit. The defendant
developer sought an order striking or
staying the owner’s claims. The lower
Court refused to grant such an order.
[See Condo Cases Across Canada, Part
30, February 2010] On appeal, the Divisional Court held as follows:
1. A condominium unit owner has no
legal capacity to assert claims in relation to the common elements.
2. The owner’s claims with respect to the
unit were also stayed, but with leave
to lift the stay if the owner elected to
opt out of the condominium corporation’s action.
The decision included the following
paragraph:
In agreeing with the conclusion that the
condominium corporation is the only
appropriate plaintiff in relation to an
action concerning the common elements,
it is important to remember that an individual unit owner is not without a remedy
if the corporation refuses to bring such
an action. He or she has a claim against
the condominium corporation, the entity
charged under the Act with the responsibility for maintaining and repairing the
common elements.
[Editorial note: The Divisional Court
didn’t elaborate on what sort of claim
might be asserted by the owner against
the condominium corporation, as
described in the above paragraph. Is the
owner’s right simply to insist that the
condominium corporation fulfill its
maintenance and repair obligations? Or
can a condominium owner take the
position that the condominium corporation has a duty to assert claims in certain
circumstances? Again, the Court did
not elaborate.]
16
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1272 v.
Beach Development (Phase II)
Corp. (Ontario Superior Court of
Justice) November 16, 2010
Absence of cost-sharing agreement
did not constitute oppression
This development comprised four condominiums as well as separate free-hold commercial/retail property. There were shared
services and easements between the different properties. However, cost-sharing
agreements had not been prepared and
registered (except for a “limited cost-sharing agreement” in the case of one of the
condominiums).
The condominium corporations argued
that the developer (who owns the freehold commercial/retail space) unfairly
benefits from the lack of a cost-sharing
agreement because the developer has
the benefit of the shared services and yet
has no responsibility to contribute towards the operating and maintenance
costs. The Court disagreed. The Court
said that the developer “may be responsible at common law for some portion of
certain costs” related to shared services.
The scope, amount and allocation of
those costs would be open to debate, but
would be subject to common law principles of negligence, nuisance, restitution
and unjust enrichment. In any event, the
Court said:
While I can acknowledge that a cost
sharing agreement might have been a
prudent, and even preferred, way to
achieve a fair allocation, the applicants
are not without their remedies at common law in the absence of such an
agreement. The imputation of an agreement is not necessary to protect their legitimate interests.
Lexington on the Green Inc. v.
Toronto Standard Condominium
Corporation No. 1930 (Ontario
Court of Appeal) November 9, 2010
Provision in declaration not an
“agreement” for purposes of Section 112 of the Condominium Act
The condominium corporation’s declaration required that the condominium
corporation purchase a unit for a resident
manager, at a cost of $240,000. The
lower Court held that this was an
agreement that could be cancelled
pursuant to Section 112 of the Condominium Act [see Condo Cases Across
Canada, Part 28, November 2009.] The
lower Court decision was overturned on
| SPRING 2011 | C C I R EVI EW
appeal. The Court of appeal said that
legal obligations arising from a condominium declaration are not “agreements”
for purposes of Section 112.
Swan v. Goan (Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, Small Claims
Court – Oshawa, Ontario)
November 25, 2010
Former director’s claims for
defamation dismissed
The plaintiff brought claims against the
condominium corporation and various
other parties for defamation as a result of
the publication and republication of a notice of requisition for a condominium
owner’s meeting which sought to remove
the plaintiff as a director of the condominium corporation. [The plaintiff was removed by a vote of the majority of the
owners, at the requisitioned meeting.]
All claims were dismissed. Among other
things, the Court said that the defendants
were entitled to rely upon the defences of
fair comment and/or qualified privilege.
NEWFOUNDLAND
AND LABRADOR
CASE:
Neil’s Pond (Phase III) Condominium Corp. v. J.M.J. Holdings Ltd.
(Newfoundland and Labrador
Supreme Court, Trial Division –
General Division) December 16,
2010
Common expenses payable by
developer in relation to unsold
units
A number of units were unsold and
accordingly were still owned by the
developer. The developer asserted that
common expenses were not payable
with respect to units owned by the
developer until those units were ready for
occupancy. The Court disagreed and
ordered the developer to pay common
expenses, in accordance with the terms
of the corporation’s declaration, in
relation to all unsold units, commencing
upon the date of registration of the
declaration. The Court also confirmed
that interest had accumulated on the
unpaid amounts, at the rate indicated in
the corporation’s declaration.
James Davidson, LL.B., ACCI, FCCI,
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP,
Ottawa, ON
chapter
C H AT T E R
To r o n t o C h a p t e r
Hello and Best Wishes for spring from the CCI Toronto Chapter!
As the cold and blustery days of winter begin to fade in our
memories, we look eagerly toward the arrival of the spring
season. Along with spring will come a rush of activity within
the Toronto Chapter.
Under the leadership of new CCI Toronto Chapter President, Bill
Thompson, the Chapter Board held a Strategic Planning Session in late February and came away from that meeting with a
wealth of ideas and initiatives to keep us busy well into the yearand beyond!
The Chapter was thrilled to have launched its first course webinar
in January 2011 with Brian Horlick and Bob Girard presenting the
Condo 201 course. The Condo 101 course is now also slated to
be presented via a two part webinar – to be held on April 5th and
12th with presenters, Gina Cody, John Warren, Richard Pearlstein
and Mario Deo. Feedback from members is that they are excited to
have the choice of in-class or webinar formats for their learning opportunities.
Condo Board members should mark their calendars for the next
Networking Dinner on March 30th, 2011. The discussions that
evening will focus on legal issues, and CCI-T has lined up many of
Toronto’s top condo lawyers to join in table discussions. The dinner
will take place at the Novotel North York hotel. Registration or further details can be found at: www.ccitoronto.org.
Spring is also conference time and several members of CCI
Toronto will be traveling to various conferences – including the
CCI Golden Horseshoe Chapter in April 2011, the CAI Annual
Conference in Boca Raton in May 2011 and then the CCINational meetings and seminars being hosted by the CCI Nova
Scotia Chapter in June 2011. We eagerly look forward to these
events for the invaluable networking and learning opportunities
they afford.
And speaking of conferences – planning has already begun for
the annual CCI-T/ACMO Condominium Conference being
held on Friday November 4th and Saturday November 5th 2011 –
at our new venue – the Toronto Congress Centre. Mark your
calendars and check the website at www.condoconference.ca
for additional details as they become available.
Lynn Morrovat, CCI Toronto and Area Chapter Administrator
South Saskatchewan Chapter
Welcome to nearly spring. We have held, to date, a couple of
seminars and put on a program at the public library to help inform
potential first-time condo buyers what to look for in a condo and
about the intricacies of condo living. We are trying to reinforce the
positives as well as give them some of the minor pitfalls and how
to avoid them. Ignorance may be bliss, as the saying goes, but
understanding condominiums before you buy a unit will really
help to ensure a smooth, happy experience. All of these seminars
were well received and attended in spite of our challenging
winter weather this year.
Our main objective this year is to increase membership numbers.
We have a good core of loyal members and would like to add to
this. A greater membership base will allow us the ability to
expand our educational programs, something that we think is
very important.
Our chapter is also experimenting with electronic newsletter distribution. This will help to get the newsletter to our members
faster and help us to save the precious Saskatchewan forests!
Our chapter is also participating with the Provincial government
in regard to changes are being contemplated with respect to
condominiums and insurance.
Lee Ann Brown, Board Member of the
South Saskatchewan Chapter.
CCI REVIEW |
SPRING 2011
| 17
chapter
C H AT T E R
London & Area Chapter
Every day is a day of learning in the condominium community.
The board of directors of our CCI – London & Area Chapter and
other local professionals bring a wealth of knowledge and
experience to the development of the educational resources that
CCI is best known for. They are dedicated in their response to
the needs of the condominium community and we thank them
all for the time they devote to the growth in our chapter.
Our local directors, owners, and industry professionals are meeting
the many challenges by learning from the experts in the condominium
arena who volunteer their time and expertise to us at our seminar
presentations held throughout the year; at our Annual General
Meeting; and at our 2-day Condominium Course.
Upcoming Seminars for the London & Area Chapter will include:
March 22nd
, 2011 – “Maximize Your Maintenance Dollars!”
Coffee/Tea Time Sponsor: CondosPlus Property
Management Inc. and Rogers
Cable Communication Inc.
Dave Leff from TLC Professional Landscaping and Ian Low
from Aluminum Associates will be speaking on the value of
maintenance inspections; selecting and communicating and
working with qualified contractors; what to look for on property
inspections; organizing repairs; where and when not to quote;
importance of work orders for small jobs; contracts for larger
projects; insurance and WSIB clearances and getting the right
contractor for the job.
May10th 2011: “There are no Stupid Questions!”
Coffee/Tea Time Sponsor: Scott Petrie, Brander Wright,
and Bell LLP Law Firm
This annual event offers a panel of legal experts to present briefly
on specific condominium law topic, such as: environmental,
building, health and fire codes; employment legislation;
contracts, and insurance requirements, income tax, and human
rights. The brief presentations are followed by questions from
the audience and answers for the panel of legal experts.
October 22nd and 29th 2011: “Condominium Course”
Details to follow!
From the CCI London and Area Chapter I wish everyone an early
spring.
Gina Darlene, Administrator,
CCI London & Area Chapter
Huronia Chapter
The Huronia Chapter has been busy setting up their yearly event
calendar. This year we are offering the Spring Advanced Director’s
Course (Level 200) in Barrie on April 9th and April 16th featuring
a number of speakers. The Huronia Chapter will also be hosting
one day seminars and two President's Clubs, one set for May
16th featuring a discussion on Health and Safety and the second
on Oct 3 addressing the practical issues of Human Rights.
Recently our latest newsletter was sent out to all members and
we are already assembling the spring edition. Hard at work
behind the scenes is our new Chapter Administrator, Leslie. She
has been instrumental in developing new systems and processes
to streamline our organization. She works tirelessly and is above
all very efficient. As always I want to thank our hard working
18
| SPRING 2011 | C C I R EVI EW
Board members for their time and effort as the chapter’s efforts
and ultimate success really are a sum of the parts.
Shari L. Davidson, President, CCI Huronia Chapter
chapter
C H AT T E R
South Alberta Chapter
Spring is fast approaching and we all here in the West will be
glad for some warmer weather and longer days. With the arrival
of Spring we are becoming very busy with some new initiatives.
We have decided to introduce a brand new Course to fulfill some
of our objectives in keeping with our new Mission Statement “To
educate, to advocate for, condominium corporations and unit
owners.” We have adapted from the Condominium Management
201 Course originally offered in the East and titled the new
Course, CM 101. This course is geared toward board members
and unit owners, which differs from our CM 100, 200 and 300
courses, which are for both board members and industry. This
took a lot of work in adapting the course and we are excited to
report feedback so far is fantastic and the 2 courses we have
booked for February were very close to maximum capacity!
This course will help both fulfill our objectives as well as our
fiscal hardships.
We continue to offer our Condominium Management courses. In October we held a CM 100 Course and in January a CM 200 Course.
We plan to offer a CM 300 Course in April. Our monthly luncheons
are a still a big hit, with on average 50 members and non-members
attending per month. We have some exciting topics in the works.
Our President, Stephen Cassady and Vice-President John
McDougall continue to sit on the Provincial Alberta Property Act
Revision Committee. They, with many other representatives are
working to revise our outdated Property Act.
Good things are happening here at CCI-SAC! Very exciting for
us all!
Melanie Bennett, Office Administrator,
CCI South Alberta Chapter
Golden Horseshoe Chapter
As we have done in each of the past several years, the Golden
Horseshoe Chapter got down to business early in the new year
when we met for our annual planning session mid-January. During
this session our committee composition was reviewed and committee members re-affirmed. Each committee was assigned new
goals for the upcoming year and we are all ambitious to achieve
completion over the next several months.
We have also introduced a new committee which will be
comprised of our trade and service provider members. Nathan
Helder has volunteered to chair the committee and has drawn
membership from all regions of the Golden Horseshoe. The
Service Providers Committee will focus on our Sponsor member
group and the specific needs of those representatives of the
Chapter. Their first priorities include the creation of a 5th edition
of our newsletter geared exclusively to this segment of membership as well as a “Meet Your Market” introduction event which
will enable our sponsor members to network with the property
managers and board members.
Other committees will be working on expanding our website
and publications, reviewing course materials, introduction of the
Level 300 in 2012 and continuing to build awareness of the Fair
Tax Campaign. Plans also include increasing the coverage of our
“Level 100 Road Show" and, of course, all of this is in addition
to hosting the “All Under One Roof” conference and trade show
in April.
During this first quarter we have offered two very successful
events. The first was our Property Managers Luncheon held
February 8th in Guelph. The event was a sell out and speakers included Rob Mullin, Michael Clifton, Maria Finoro and Don Bassindale
from our board. Managers received excellent information regarding
the sale of a condominium unit from the perspective of the lawyer,
manager and real estate agent. Our second successful event was
our first “mini” Level 100 held March 5th in Milton. We thank our
sponsors, speakers and attendees for making both of these events
a success!
As we near the date of our conference and trade show all attention will be focused on ensuring the details are addressed, our
“i’s” dotted and our “t’s” crossed.
We wish you all an early spring and hope to see you at the
conference April 9th!
Karen Reynolds, A.I.H.M., RCM, ACCI, FCCI, Secretary
CCI - Golden Horseshoe Chapter
CCI REVIEW |
SPRING 2011
| 19
chapter
C H AT T E R
Ottawa Chapter
There is no doubt that it is a cold winter in the Capital. But, here
at CCI-Ottawa, we are warming it up with great seminars, events
and other activities!
Our first seminar of the New Year was a great success. Jim Davidson
and John Peart led their annual “Guns, Lawyers and Money” Seminar
on January 26. A lively discussion followed the presentation on the
most up-to-date legal cases from across Canada. Thanks to sponsor
Comfort King Windows Ltd. for their support of this event.
Registrations are already coming in fast and furiously for our
March 2 seminar on “How Grow Ops Affect Your Condo”. With
presentations from an RCMP officer, an environmental specialist
and insurance adjuster, we will be offering the best information
possible to help limit your liabilities and know the signs of a
marijuana grow-op! Sign up early, as space is limited.
April 2 and 3, 2011 marks the April edition of our Condo Director’s
Course. We are close to half full already, so if you plan on joining
us for our first-rate education, don’t delay and sign up.
Our May seminar will be a fun and light-hearted look at “How to
Run an Effective AGM”. Join the CCI-Ottawa Board as they take
on roles to showcase all the personalities involved in making an
AGM an event that is memorable, yet productive. A Q&A session
will be included.
Our Boat Cruise returns on June 8 for a spring cruise up the
Ottawa River. Members will get a private evening charter with
dinner and DJ for dancing. What better way to enjoy Spring in
Ottawa than with the members of CCI?
As well, CCI-Ottawa is getting more involved in the municipal
affairs with the City of Ottawa. The chapter’s letters to the City
Council and Mayor have been received and motions are in place
for discussions with city officials regarding our concerns.
For information on membership in the CCI-Ottawa Chapter or to
enquire and register for any upcoming events, please contact the
chapter at cciottawa@cci.ca.
Alison Nash, Administrator, CCI-Ottawa Chapter
Newfoundland and Labrador Chapter
As February brings cold and blustery weather to us here in
Newfoundland, we hope for a very early spring, and we extend
warm greetings to fellow members across Canada.
We had a very productive Annual General Meeting and Seminar
late last fall. Our seminar consisted of a forum of two St. John’s
City Council members and their Director of Municipal Services.
Our moderator gave a background of the somewhat rocky
relationship between condominium owners and the City and our
disappointment that the City had recently disbanded its Condominium Committee. Both councillors spoke on their continued
efforts to support us and the floor then opened for questions.
The Councillors did not make any promises that most or any of
the issues that arose from the forum could be addressed, but
they did agree that the Committee should be re-established.
At a subsequent City Council meeting, that was attended by CCI
members and some of our Board, Council did vote unanimously
to re-establish the Condominium Committee. Both Geoff Penney
and I have been invited to sit on this Committee and, as well, to
be part of the initial selection process for members. We meet for
the first time at the end of February.
20
| SPRING 2011 | C C I R EVI EW
At our last Board meeting we began the process to plan for our
next information seminar and we have firmed up our efforts to
begin our third edition of our newsletter, and we hope to have
that roll off the press by early spring.
Finally, we continue to wait for the Regulations to our Act, and it
is reported they are expected to be proclaimed by the end of
March.
Carol Burke, President,
CCI Newfoundland and Labrador Chapter
chapter
C H AT T E R
Va n c o u v e r C h a p t e r
The Vancouver chapter board has been quite busy over three or
four months. We have been working hard to grow our membership and as of the end of January our membership numbers are
up over twenty percent over our membership totals for the last
fiscal year! We are hoping that our numbers grow even more
over the next few months as we continue to develop and market
our educational seminar programs. Our next educational seminar
is scheduled for Saturday, February 19, 2011 and will be our
first all day seminar. We expect approximately 75 to 80 attendees
who will have an opportunity to participate in an interactive program
that will focus on:
• Capital planning and depreciation reports;
• Insurance claims and how to assess insurance risks; and
• Legal hot button topics including dealing with annoying council
members, what is “hardship” anyhow, arbitration and mediation
and recent legislative and case law developments.
Our chapter has also been contacted by the Provincial Government
and asked to make submissions, along with other stakeholders
in the condominium industry, regarding proposed changes to the
regulations to the Strata Property Act with respect to depreciation
reports and audited financial statements. We are excited to be
able to be part of this process and work on behalf of our members
to provide input before rather than after the legislative drafters
have put their pens down!
Lastly, we are in the process of finalizing the program for our
spring educational seminar which will likely take place in May.
We hope to continue providing what we consider to be useful
and beneficial educational seminars for our members and once
again thank them for their continuing support.
Jamie Bleay, LL.B., President, CCI Vancouver Chapter
Manitoba Chapter
The Manitoba Chapter of the Canadian Condominium Institute has
been busy hosting a series of educational and informative sessions
this past fall and the schedule continues into spring of 2011.
Our most recent edition of the Newsletter went out to members
during the month of February, 2011. Besides the content of informative articles we used the newsletter for distribution of invitations to
upcoming seminars and events. Once again, we commend the efforts
of the entire Newsletter Committee for another fine newsletter.
Educational programs for the remainder of the year are available
both on the website and in the newsletters. On the horizon
shortly are Condo 101 on February 12, and the Director’s Breakfast Session for February 23, followed by a “Welcome to CCI”
session on March 7, Lunch and Learn – Power Smart – Energy
Saving Strategies on March 17, 2011 and “New Condos/New
Boards” on April 9, 2011. We are pleased to announce that our
first “President’s Forum” in recent memory will be held in March,
2011. Our intent is to facilitate a setting for Presidents to discuss
and share challenges and accomplishments related to serving
Condominium Boards in the capacity of “Presidents”.
Of current interest (and concern) of late have been the issues of bedbugs in condominium buildings. One of our Manitoba Chapter Board
Members has created a CCI Manitoba paper on “Bedbug Protocols”
and will be the speaker for a session on May 3, 2011 titled “Preventing and Managing Bedbug Infestations”.
We are still anticipating a new version of the Manitoba Condominium
Act will be tabled at the Legislature this year. The provincial working
group committee for this task continues its work on the draft measures.
Lou Anna Roberts, President,
CCI-Manitoba Chapter
CCI REVIEW |
SPRING 2011
| 21
chapter
C H AT T E R
Nova Scotia Chapter
Since last reporting the months have slipped by very quickly and
as I write this update I keep reminding myself that Spring can’t be
far away. However, it sure does not seem that way when I look outside!!! Nevertheless, the organizers for the Canada Winter Games,
currently being held in Halifax and surrounding areas, are grateful
for our abundant snowfall for a number of the featured sports.
The past several months have kept our 2011 Committee busy
organizing for the hosting of the CCI National meetings in Halifax
in June. Our Chapter is looking forward to welcoming delegates
from across the country and we are hopeful that you will enjoy
the functions that we have planned. (See details elsewhere in
this Newsletter.) We are in control of some things but the
weather is not one of them, but our fingers are crossed that our
June weather will add to the enjoyment of your visit to Halifax.
Condominium owners in the province are still anxiously awaiting
the proclamation of our revised Condominium Act. The latest word
we have is that it will happen sometime in March. This later date
has resulted in our Chapter having to adjust the schedule for two
of our Spring seminars, Insurance and Dispute Resolution, as both
of these are intended to address revisions to the Act that are not
well defined without the benefit of the pending regulations.
Consequently the Chapter has three busy months ahead with seminars in April, May and our Chapter seminar in June in conjunction
with the National meetings. The June seminar “Developing ‘the
Community’ in your Condominium Corporation” will, we hope, be
of interest to a number of you attending the June meetings.
The development of our committee structure to involve volunteers
from our Chapter membership has taken more time than anticipated
but committees are forming and will be in full swing for next
year’s operation.
Enjoy the rest of our Canadian winter and we will see some of
you in June.
Carol Conrad, President, CCI Nova Scotia Chapter
ACCI Designation
The ACCI (Associate of Canadian Condominium Institute) is the national CCI designation
awarded to professional members who meet current CCI eligibility requirements, successfully
complete a written examination, and pledge to abide by CCI’s Code of Ethics for Professional
Members. The designation is a recognition of their degree of skill, professionalism and outstanding
achievements and their contributions to the condominium community.
S EAN EG LI NTON
Congratulations to Sean Eglinton, CCI London Chapter, who was recently
awarded his ACCI designation.
Sean is a property manager with Thorne Property Management Ltd., in London.
22
| SPRING 2011 | C C I R EVI EW
National
CCI COURSES - SEMINARS - WORKSHOPS:
COAST TO COAST
APRIL – MAY – JUNE 2011
STARTS ON
TITLE
CCI CHAPTER
APRIL
Saturday April 2, 9, 16
Condominium Management 300 (Calgary)
South Alberta Chapter
Sat/Sun April 2, 3
Spring Condo Directors Course (Ottawa)
Ottawa Chapter
Sat/Sun April 2,3
Condominium Management 100 (Red Deer)
North Alberta Chapter
Wednesday, April 6
Reserve Fund Studies Luncheon (Edmonton)
North Alberta Chapter
Thursday April 7
Lunch & Learn: Making the Most of Your Insurance (Winnipeg)
Manitoba Chapter
Saturday April 9
“All Under One Roof” – 2011 Conference & Tradeshow (Hamilton)
Golden Horseshoe Chapter
Saturday April 9, 16
Director’s Course (Level 2) (Barrie)
Huronia Chapter
Saturday April 9
New Condos/New Boards
Manitoba Chapter
Fri/Sat/Sun April 15-17
Condominium Management 200 (Edmonton)
North Alberta Chapter
MAY
Tuesday May 3
Preventing and Managing Bedbug Infestations
Manitoba Chapter
Wednesday May 4
Condominium Act and Bylaws (Edmonton)
North Alberta Chapter
Tuesday May 10
There are No Stupid Questions! Annual Event!
London Chapter
Fri/Sat/Sun May 13-15
Condominium Management 300 (Edmonton)
North Alberta Chapter
Monday May 16
President’s Club: Health & Safety Seminar (Barrie)
Huronia Chapter
Wednesday May 25
How to Run An Effective AGM (Ottawa)
Ottawa Chapter
Friday May 27
Spring Conference – Reserve Fund Studies & Maintenance Issues (Saskatoon)
North Saskatchewan Chapter
JUNE
Thursday, June 2
Saturday June 4, 11
Wednesday June 8
Fri/Sat/Sun June 10-12
Saturday June 18
Condo Course S101
Condo Course S300
An Evening on the Ottawa River – Boat Cruise
Condominium Conference and Tradeshow 2011 (Edmonton)
Developing the ‘Community’ in your Condominium Corporation
(in conjunction with hosting CCI-N Council meetings)
Toronto Chapter
Toronto Chapter
Ottawa Chapter
North Alberta Chapter
Nova Scotia Chapter
COMING – FALL 2011
Tuesday September 27
Monday October 3
Saturday October 22, 29
Fri/Sat November 4-5
Building Community: 2011 Trade Show, Conference & AGM
President’s Club: Practical Guide to Human Rights (Barrie)
Condominium Course
CCI-T/ACMO Condominium Conference
Manitoba Chapter
Huronia Chapter
London Chapter
Toronto Chapter
For specific information and registration forms for the courses,
workshops and seminars noted above, please contact the appropriate CCI Chapter
See page 3 for contact information or website: cci.ca
C C I R EVI EW | SPRING 2011
| 23