Demonizing an owner who challenges the incumbent directors is a shrewed
tactic because it works; especially if you claim that the challenger has cost the owners money.
It's unethical but that doesn't matter. In politics, winning matters.
Here is a part of the minutes of an AGM from a condo in the GTA:
So an owner asked the auditor about:
• $60,000 shortage in the Reserve Funds.
• $50,000 deficit in the Operating Fund.
So to make up for the $110,000 shortfall, the board should have raised
the monthly fees. However that would make the board look bad.
Instead the board announces that the owners need to pay a second
Special Assessment of $1,000 a unit and it is all the fault of one
owner, who happens to be running for a position on the board.
An owner takes his board to Superior Court to:
• get an AGM. (the condo had none in three years.)
• get audited Financial Statements (the condo had none in three years).
• force the board to get a Reserve Fund Study.
• examine certain corporation records.
In total, the owner got 11 court orders against the board.
In response, the board announced a Special Assessment to pay for the legal costs. Then they held the court-ordered AGM.
Prior to the AGM, the president announced that if the incumbents were
re-elected, the monthly maintenance fees would not go up and their
would not be any more Special Assessments.
Did the owner get elected? Of course not.
top contents chapter previous