Work orders 
Routine maintenance should never be neglected.
—automobile adage

Penny wise and pound foolish —English idiom The corporation had work orders calling for renovations with an estimated cost of $9,600,000. As of the end of 2006, only $73,000 worth of the required work was done. The City of Toronto had issued work orders to YCC #42 covering repair of the balconies and brickwork of each building. Dealing with the corporation's dreadful financial situation and the city work orders was the administrator's first priories.

Andrew Atrens negotiated a settlement with the city for the repairs to be completed over three years commencing in the spring of 2007.

He then engaged a firm of engineers, SPG Engineering Group Ltd, to assess the work required to comply with the city work orders and to assist in the tender process. From six bids submitted in that process, Mr. Atrens selected the bid of Universal Structural Restorations Ltd. (USRL).

Andrew Atrens signed three contracts with USRL for the completion of the work in three stages. The contract prices under these contracts were:

$2.76 million in 2007 for 330 Dixon Road,
$3.87 million in 2008 for 320 Dixon Road, and
$2.89 million in 2009 for 340 Dixon Road.

Loan by-law
In early 2007, the corporation had to raise $12 million to pay for the cost of the work orders, the paying off the $600,000 deficit and replenishing the reserve fund.

Mr. Atrens held a special meeting on 23 April 2007 to ask the owners to approve a loan by-law to raise the needed $12 million.

The meeting could not be held because there was no quorum. Some of the owners in attendance suspected, but had no proof, that cost of the work orders was too high.

Authorization to negotiate a loan
Mr. Atrens believed that it was in the best interests of the owners that YCC #42 obtain the $12 million by means of a loan negotiated with a third party. The owners would have the option to pay monthly over the thirty months that the work was being done or to prepay their obligations annually.

He therefore brought a motion to Superior Court on 18 May 2007 seeking the court’s permission to borrow without passage of a borrowing by-law. He urged the court to approve it on the basis that he believes the unit owners are acting against their best interests. (Court file #: 06CL6587  Date: 29 May 2007)

The court refused. Justice H.J.W. Siegel ruled that the common elements are subject to the requirement of collective approval of any proposed action.

The court also found that there is no basis for the administrator’s position that the scheme of the Act contemplates that the financial health of a condominium corporation is “paramount” and, “where necessary, therefore, democracy shall succumb to professional administration.”

Accordingly, the Court found that YCC #42 (the administrator) did not have the power to borrow any monies in the absence of a borrowing by-law approved by the unit owners.

Special assessment
Mr Atrens then levied a $12,000,000 special assessment on the corporation’s owners for a 30-month period starting on 15 June 2007.

The renovations could proceed.


top  contents  chapter  previous  next