Making A Rich Contractor Richer

 

​ 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.”

Based on the two letters below, can anyone explain why a Board of Directors automatically approves a yearly 15 to 20% increase, for three consecutive years, without considering the possibility of relying on a substitute that may provide the same service for less?

 

======================

 

Attn: The Board of Directors,

MTCC0001

19 November 2024

Dear Members of The Board,

In reviewing the amount of money spent by The Board, under the heading of “Security”, it has become obvious to me that the “Service Provider” has increased significantly (20 to 24%) the amount of money paid for the steady number of hours and the same number of security guards on duty; Actual 2022 $96,788 Actual 2023 $120,517 Actual 2024 $156,000.

Here are the clarifications, that I hope I can obtain from The Board:

a) Is The Board selecting the “Security Company” because it is classified as a “Trusted Supplier”?

b) Has The Board ever discussed with the appropriate party why the “Corporation” has to shoulder unreasonable increases that go well beyond 20% yearly?

c) Did the Board make any attempt to open the service to bids and allow competitors to provide the same service for a significantly lesser amount?

Thanks in advance for any clarification you might be able to provide.

Nicholas Manichevitz

Narkan, ON

================================

 

Mr. Petrof Manevsky, Property Manager 

MTCC0001, Narkan, ON

20 January 2025

Dear Sir,

With great disappointment I am writing this email simply because I was hoping that you will be more proactive than your predecessor, and refrain from hiding behind a wall of silence hoping that a concern expressed by a unit owner will miraculously disappear, and spare you disruptions in your 9 to 5 routine.

Like your predecessor, you failed to adhere to the time frame conveyed to me by the lawyer of the corporation, and unfortunately I will have to rely on third parties to get answers for decisions adopted by The Board that trigger serious alarm bells for me and other owners.

Why am I so concerned with the issues expressed in my email of 19 Nov. 2024?

A) My home is my biggest investment ($600,000) that imposed on me lots of pain and hard work, over a period of 40 years, to become mortgage free.

B) Like every Canadian who invests thousands of dollars in a specific financial goal, I worry when companies, individuals, Boards associated with my financial project cannot explain why a contractor was awarded 20 to 24% increases over a period of three years, and no one made any attempt to find a substitute who can provide the same service for less than $156,000, an amount that represents roughly 15% of the total budget of 2024.

Very shortly I will retain the services of Flying Eagle Audit for a full review of your financial documents, contracts, etc. from 2022, to 2024. I need to have an understanding as to why such a huge amount is given to a contractor without an adequate explanation. Keep in mind, that under existing rules and regulations the audit will be performed at the expense of The Corporation.

Please note, that I do not want to hear anything from the lawyer of The Corporation. If he is not happy with the tone of my email, finds certain words offending, he can go ahead and file the appropriate documents with any judicial, quasi-judicial, or regulatory agency he deems appropriate to redress his or The Corporation’s grievances. The only place where I will lock horns with him, is in a court of law.

Kind Regards,

Nicholas Manichevitz

Narkan, ON

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Should A Lawyer Protect The Ego Of A Client Or The Vested Interest Of A Client?

 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.

 

Libel & Defamation; The Verdict of The Supreme Court of Canada

 In general, lawyers who convey to Condo owners threats of “Cease-And-Desist” followed by a stern warning to keep your mouth shut about the shortcomings of The Board of Directors and/or The Management Company, do so with a condescending attitude based on the assumption that the Condo owner is nothing short of an idiot who has no clue about the rules and regulations of the realm, and The Supreme Court of Canada, for a Condo owner, is the newest brand name of a chocolate bar introduced to the Canadian market.

Often, lawyers do not take into consideration the fact that a Condo owner may not have a fancy professional designation at the end of his name, such as a juris doctor (J.D.) or bachelor of laws (LL.B), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Condo owner lives in an information vacuum dominated by an ignorance of the laws.

A lengthy introduction to highlight the fact that journalists, and Public Interest Bloggers (PIB), cannot perform their duties without understanding the scope of their obligations and the legal ramifications of their publications. We do not need the derision of lawyers, nor intimidations to realize that we face “Serious Risks”, often with dire consequences, especially when confronting law firms and corporations with deep pockets that can easily destroy a Public Interest Journalist (PIJ)/Blogger with lengthy lawsuits designed to bankrupt the person, and force him/her to refrain from revealing the truth about Corporate corruption, unethical modes of operations, and sheer contempt of the collective good by a culture of greed obsessed with profit.

We carry our mission with courage, and for us “Courage is not the absence of fear. It is the dedication to make the right move despite the presence of FEAR.” Our fears have been partially alleviated by The Supreme Court of Canada, when the highest Court in the realm declared in 2009 that Journalists/Public Interest Bloggers (PIB) can use the defence of "Responsible Communication" when facing defamation/libel law suits.

In a nutshell, The Supreme Court of Canada declared that a Journalist or a PIB can be absolved from any liability (a) if an attempt was made to verify the facts, and (B) the published material is a matter of public interest.  

Of course prior to publishing an article, I do solicit the opinion of the parties allegedly involved in wrongdoings, and I do consider the issues I promote through my articles as matters of “Public Interest”, because undeniably for almost 90% of Condo owners, their apartment/property is the biggest investment of their lives. Board of Directors and Management Companies adopt measures an decisions that can have a very serious impact on the biggest investment of a Condo owner, thus the vigilance and the need to hold the 4th Government, The Board, accountable for any neglect of duty that may endanger life and property.

Without freedom of speech we cannot seek accountability. Without accountability power can become blind, destructive, and used and abused for the profit of the few at the expense of the multitude facing the risk of losing their biggest investment that required decades of hard work to reach the “Mortgage Free Dwelling” status. 

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 fail to comply with basic rules of logical reasoning, do not make any comments.

Open Letter To The Lawyer Of The Corporation

 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.”

=============================

Dear Madam/Sir,

Correct me if I am wrong, because I am relying on info from the mid 1980s, LSAT was an exam designed to assess the logical faculties of a person contemplating a career in the legal profession. None of the extensive list of questions a potential candidate had to struggle with, were pertinent to “Law”. In other words, a future lawyer was expected to be more adept at logical reasoning rather than the sheer memorization of rules and regulations.

What is your professional view (logical explanation) of the following phenomenon:

A builder finishes the construction of a condo. Buyers start moving into their units in late 2016. In 2017 Management Company X, selected by the builder/developer creates the first Board of Directors composed of 5 members reflecting the “Ethnic” composition of the 175 owners in the building.

In 2019, a new management company shows up on the scene, Board membership shrinks from 5 to 3, all belonging to the same “Ethnic” group that owns the management company.

From 2019 to 2024 Board members, now ethnically homogeneous, fail to notice that other “Ethnic” groups exist in the building. While using the elevators, the common areas, the underground parking lots, and possibly the gym all three Board members never encounter anyone from another “Ethnic” group, thus they become averse to change (expanding the membership to 5) and too comfortable with the idea that there is nothing wrong with the Status Quo, and if there are no complaints expressed we don’t have to take any initiative to introduce “Diversity” into our ranks.

Joins and encourages “The Group Think”, the desire to create conformity, the Management Company, that also fails to notice that The Board looks to an outside observer like an exclusive “Private Club”.

Now the $1000 question about the previous scenario:

What are the chances that everything described is sheer coincidence; 1in a 1000, 1 in 10,000 or 1 in a million? What are the odds that human volition had nothing to do in creating and maintaining the Status Quo-the discrimination to keep the Board ethnically homogeneous?

Although the questions above are addressed to the “Fictitious” lawyer of the Corporation, readers who have a strong mathematical inclination, or are experts in “Statistical Analysis” are more than welcome to provide an answer.

Respectfully,

Perplexed Condo Owner, Narkhan, ON

=================================

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 fail to comply with basic rules of logical reasoning, do not make any comments.

Eliminating A Risk. Why 007?

 In my previous article I referred to the following statement received from The Corporation’s lawyer:

“...Your blog does not need to explicitly name the Management or the Board to defame them; if a reader can surmise from your blog who they are, then you could be held liable for defamation nonetheless.”

Since there was a very remote chance that a reader will manage to connect a three-digit number to a specific Condominium Corporation located in a very specific city in Ontario, I selected randomly 007. All future articles will be about HYPOTHETICAL cases designed to develop awareness about critical issues affecting Condo Owners, and should not be construed as an attempt to blame a specific Condo Corporation for failing to protect the collective interests of a Condo Community.

Please do not leave comments asking me for applications to join His Majesty’s Secret Service (MI6). 007 was randomly selected to highlight the point that the very same dangers encountered in the world of espionage, can exist in a condominium environment. After all, protecting vested interests is the name of the game in the espionage industry. Protecting the vested interests of the Board is the name of the game in the “Condo Industry”. Both industries have nothing to do with the “Collective Good”.

A blogger or an investigative journalist (IJ) is like an “Intelligence Agent” (IA). IA collects info, analyzes the details, and disseminate the conclusions to political decision makers that are supposedly dedicated to serve the “Collective Good” or the National Security of a country.

IJ collects, analyzes, and disseminates information to the public to generate an awareness about an issue that undermines public interests. In other words the IA and IJ use the same methodology for different goals.

When the authority of the State is challenged, IAs are used to neutralize/eliminate dissenting voices labelled “Enemies of The State”. When too much criticism is expressed about The Board, depending on the severity of the criticism, The Board relies on a long list of actors and measures to nip in the bud “Freedom of Expression”.

I can write volumes about the common denominators shared by Boards and State actors, but I will postpone it for another occasion. The only point I need to highlight before wrapping up my article is the fact that in Canada, The Board of Directors of a Condominium Corporation is considered the 4th Government, with powers to collect money, to pass rules and regulations, and literally confiscate and sell your property if you fail to pay your monthly “Maintenance Fees”.

Like all governments The Board has three “Cardinal” obligations:
a) To protect lives.
b) To protect property.
c) To adopt rules, regulations, and decisions that are compatible with The Canadian Charter of Rights, and a set of other Anti-Discrimination Laws passed by different governments.

One more time, please don’t leave comments requesting applications to join His Majesty’s Secret Service (MI6).

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 fail to comply with basic rules of logical reasoning, do not make any comments.

Pain & Suffering In A Condo Environment

The article was removed due to a "Cease-And-Desist" order received from the Board's lawyer.The following key points were stated in the letter:

You must immediately and permanently cease-and-desist from making false allegations against
[The Management Company] and the Board. You must immediately and permanently remove any harassing or defamatory content that you have published on your Blog, and you must permanently refrain from publishing any other harassing or defamatory content on your Blog or any other public forum about [The Management Company] or the Board.

If you fail to comply with the above demands and/or there are further violations of the Act or the
governing documents by you, the Corporation will commence legal proceedings against you without any further notice. If such legal proceedings are commenced, the Corporation will seek all of its legal costs on a full indemnity basis against you and/or add such litigation costs to your Unit’s common expenses which will be recoverable by way of condominium lien if necessary. In our experience, such costs could amount to several tens of thousands of dollars.

You are liable for all of the Corporation’s legal costs incurred to date in this enforcement matter against you for your unlawful harassment. If you fail to comply with the demands set out above and/or there are further violations of the Act or the governing documents by you, the Corporation may charge back your Unit for its legal costs incurred in this enforcement matter. The Corporation’s legal costs in this enforcement matter are $904.00 ($800 + HST) to date, but this amount is only as of the date of this letter and is therefore subject to change in the future.

To the objection I made that my article does not identify a person or any party by name, address, etc...the Corporation’s lawyer emailed on April 05/24 the following reply:

“...Your blog does not need to explicitly name the Management or the Board to defame them; if a reader can surmise from your blog who they are, then you could be held liable for defamation nonetheless.

We trust that you will immediately and permanently remove the harassing and defamatory content from your blog, and that you will refrain from further harassment and/or defamation.”

The lawyer of the Corporation does not consider the move made by The Board to pursue the “Cease-And-Desist” warning a SLAPP legal maneuver. For more details about SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) use the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation 

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 fail to comply with basic rules of logical reasoning, do not make any comments.

 

 

 

 

NEW LOCATION (NARKHAN-Fictional City) SAME OLD PROBLEMS

 YES, we moved from Toronto to Narkhan, but it seems that a set of chronic problems are consistently part and parcel of the “Condo Industry”, simply because when power and money are present in the same environment, they have a tendency to undermine moral principles and ethical values, paving the way for conflicts that impact negatively the quality of life in a Condo Community.

The next article is the best example of what blind exercise of power can do, especially when decision makers cannot tell the difference between managing a building and establishing a caring community where the ultimate focus is alleviating pain based on the principles of “Reasonable Accommodations”, instead of peddling via a twisted logic and a set of wrong assumptions the narrative that, legally we don’t have any obligation to change the status quo.

n.b.
When reading articles on this blog please pay attention to the publication date of an article. Any article published prior to 2024 does not apply to the new Narkhan (fictional) location.