Disclaimer:
“This article is a work of fiction. Any similarity to a Condo Corporation and its Board of Directors, persons (living or dead), or actual events, is purely coincidental. While reading the article, remain focused on the notion that reality is often stranger than fiction, and the social environment that generates a set of “Real" conflicts, is the very same social environment that creates the fictional article.”
====================================
In this fictional scenario the “Plaintiff” is a Condo owner who requested from the Board of Directors, under the provisions of “Reasonable Accommodation”, the lowering of an unusually high and uneven speed bump located in the underground parking lot of the Condo.
Plaintiff’s wife suffers from a medical condition known as Osteoporosis and the impact, of crossing a speed bump, can trigger a fracture in the spine due to the vertical pressure passengers are exposed to upon the landing of the rear wheels of a car on the ground.
From a financial point of view, the cost of lowering the speed bump is equal to or less than the amount invested in “The Christmas Party” organized by The Board/Management Company for the unit owners/residents of the Condominium.
The Board (Defendant) hired an “Engineer” to argue that speed bumps are not regulated by specific standards, and though the location of the speed bump is “Unusual” (located under an exit door), instead of being a few meters before the door, The Board feels no obligation to introduce any changes.
When the Plaintiff reminded the Defendant that under the rules of “Reasonable Accommodation” The Board should lower the speed bump, a lawyer was retained to convey the following details to the Plaintiff:
If your wife wishes to request human rights accommodation, for example on the basis of disability, please provide us with medical documentation which specifies:
a) The nature of your wife’s disability or disabilities (specific diagnosis is strictly required);
b) Your wife’s need or needs that are caused by or related to said disability or disabilities, in the context of her request for accommodation being made to the Corporation;
c) Whether any other form(s) of accommodation would be sufficient to accommodate your wife’s disability-related need(s), other than modifying the speed bump in question; and
d) What exact height the speed bump should be, in order to accommodate for her disability or disabilities.
If the above-noted information is received, the Corporation’s Board of Directors will review the information in a respectful and confidential manner, and we will advise your wife of the Board’s decision accordingly.
Please note that although the Corporation will reasonably review and assess the request as part of its procedural duty to accommodate, the Corporation may ultimately decide to deny the request or grant only a modified version of the accommodation requested.
After studying carefully the info conveyed by the Defendant’s lawyer, the Condo owner (Plaintiff) decided to decline the offer made by the lawyer for the following reasons:
1) Medical reports are never provided free of charge, neither by a family physician nor by a specialist treating a patient. Doctors are quick to point out that “Reports" are not covered by OHIP. Multiple reports must be submitted, and the final cost of satisfying the condition imposed by the lawyer can well cross the boundary of $1,500 and involve countless visits and hours wasted in clinics and hospitals, if new imaging tests are requested by the specialists.
2) Plaintiff has no incentive to invest money, time, and effort for a half-baked commitment made by The Board that does not guarantee any meaningful change to the status quo. Remember the words used by the lawyer:
“Please note that although the Corporation will reasonably review and assess the request as part of its procedural duty to accommodate, the Corporation may ultimately decide to deny the request or grant only a modified version of the accommodation requested.”
3) What can guarantee a better outcome for the Plaintiff is the reliance on the services of a “Personal Injury Lawyer” who will, use the medical reports to drag the Defendant to a court of law, to seek financial compensation for the psychological and physical pain and suffering inflicted on the Plaintiff’s wife, due to the obsession of The Board with the notion of “No One Can Tell Us What To Do”. We Decide how to introduce change and when to introduce it, not the Condo owner.
It is obvious, from the point of view of the Plaintiff that the conditions imposed were designed to satisfy the ego of The Board Members. The Lawyer, instead of advising the defendant, about the “Personal Injury Lawyer” scenario that can be pursued by the Plaintiff, decided to caress the ego of The Board members, knowing well that locking horns in a court of law can inflict thousands of dollars in damages that will be paid by the 175 unit owners of The Condominium.
In the legal profession, all lawyers agree or pay “Lip Service” to the notion that professionalism starts by discerning and defending the interests of a client, not the EGO of a client. To all those in the legal profession who fail to act and protect the long-term interest of a client, read carefully the following statement of Chief Justice Warren K. Winkler:
[He is] a mere technician, whose relationship to the client amounts to nothing other than a casual, superficial commercial transaction."
================================
n.b.
Anonymous comments will not be published. A name and an email address must be provided. If you suspect that your views are resting on shaky grounds and may fail to comply with basic rules of logical reasoning, do not make any comments.
