Statement of facts to this Board's post:

Toronto condominiums have seen, what happens when owners are not united. Here is the link to a recent news article by CBC.

​

Board claim: "This meeting requisition is the latest in a months-long series of diversions, which has cost the Corporation in excess of $25,000 and countless hours of work.  By calling the meeting, we will save future legal and administrative costs." - from Nicholas Pearson's email dt. 31 May 2021 while calling for the Owner requisitioned meeting.

Response: Self contradictory statement. The board could have done this in 2020 meeting as well. Owner requisitioned meeting is absolutely legal process and it was called by more than 500 owners in August 2020. The board should wisely utilize the owner's funds in the Corporation.
The cost of an online meeting (not much different than the quarterly information meeting) is just a few hundred dollars. If the Board is spending $25,000, then such poor financial judgement is questionable. Results of poor decision are evident in the sorry state of the condominium and very high amount of expenditures resulting in high monthly maintenance fees.

Conclusion: Poor financial decision by the board leading to a loss of $25,000 of owner's funds.
 

Board claim: "Rajat Sharma was unsuccessful in obtaining a sufficient number of valid requisition forms to call a meeting in late 2020"
Response: 69% of all owners had signed the requisition, while only 15% are required to call an Owner requisitioned meeting as per the Condominium Laws of Ontario.  In fact a requisition meeting cannot be called by one or two owners. As per the Condominium Act, the owner's requisition meeting needs a minimum of 202 owners to call the meeting.
Conclusion: False and misleading claim.

Board claim: The condo corporation had to go to court to prevent the meeting.

Response: The corporation had the option to have an open discussion with the owners, instead of spending the funds of the owners in the corporation in legal fees. This option was always available to the Board. Despite the fact that the previous president noted in the minutes of the board meeting to limit the legal expenses. Evidence available. Question remains: "is the board not in control?"

Conclusion: Well known tactics of threats and intimidation.

Board claim: This would destabilize the corporation and (as he has no proposed replacements) threaten its continuity.
Response: New Board members will be elected at the meeting. This is clearly stated on the Owner requisitioned form provided by the Condominium Authority of Ontario and is as per the Condominium Law of Ontario.
Owners have the right to call an Owner requisitioned meeting as per the Condominium Act, any effort to disrupt a valid meeting is a violation of the law.  This principle is clearly taught in the Director's training provided to all Directors and is mandated by the Condominium Authority of Ontario.
Conclusion: Misleading and fear mongering.

Board claim: Rajat Sharma continues to operate under aliases and using email addresses that may appear official.

Response: The Board has been advised of all email addresses used by the committee of owners.

Conclusion: Smear Campaign based on false information.

​

Board claim: Rajat Sharma was affected by the corporation’s changes in approach to short term rentals; this may contribute to his vitriol and explain why he wants to remove the board.

Response: Diversionary tactic to avoid answering the questions on utilization of funds, while carrying on the age old tactic of "divide and rule" by creating an imaginary issue to divide the owners.

Conclusion: False implication to divide the owners.

​

Board claim: our projects have realized significant cost savings, including an LED lighting retrofit, receiving a $757,000 rebate for energy programs

Response: The credit for the energy rebate program should go to the government that funds this program. The board had little to do with it. An unjustifiable amount of$300,000 of owners funds were used up in the corporation for replacing the lamps. This information was provided by the board at the owner information meeting held on 4th November 2020.  This amounts to a unbelievable price of $2500 per floor !. Owner's could do a google search on "What is it called when someone takes credit for someone else's work?". This is a diversionary tactic to avoid answering the questions about unrealistic spending of owners funds in the corporation.
Conclusion: False claim.


Board claim: The board respects unit owners’ rights to privacy in their voting choices, including participation in votes generally. Owners expect to vote in confidence as a fundamental principle of fair elections.

Response: The proposed by-law is not intended to disclose the voting preferences.  It will merely indicate the name and unit number. This information is already available to all owners via a record of Owners and Mortgagees as per the Condominium Act of Ontario.

Such a by-law would be legal, as noted by the Judge in this case reference.

Such a by-law would provide an oversight by the owners and eliminate fake proxies being used. 
Conclusion: Twisted reasoning, that goes against the interest of owners.

​

1. The questions remain: "What was the need for the board to run to the courts ? Are they hiding material facts from the owners?" 

2. United owners will benefit from their voice being heard. This is already evident that it will result in substantial financial savings for the owners. Even more so when the committees of their condominium are comprised of elected members.

3. Any owner who questions the utilization of funds this, have their voices muted, questions suppressed and diversionary tactics utilized to change the focus of conversation.  Intimidation and retaliation tactics are commonly used.

4. Owners are willing to work with the existing board, but have not seen any proactive decision so far to reduce the costs and improve transparency.

5. No effort has been made since the last AGM to bring forth the details of the financial transactions and contracts.

6. Corporations signed extended contracts of up to five years long, when the board members are only elected for a maximum of three years.

7. Even a small task of "Owners only discussion forum" promised on 4th of November 2020, has not been accomplished.

8. Owner's discussion should be held openly and not in secret with just one person, what is there to hide ? It is every owner's corporation.

9. Committees should comprise of elected owners.

10. Owners should have visibility in every decision making process, after all it is not that these expenses are being paid by just the directors or committee members.

11. Bringing transparency to the election process does not mean disclosing each owner's voting preferences. The courts also know this and that is why such a process has been referred to in this court case.  

12. Why is there any need to hide behind privacy of email addresses and generic proxy information, while the Condominium Act itself allows for disclosure of the mailing addresses of all owners, this is just a "twisted rationalization". Such a false veil of secrecy can only lead to distrust. There was no transparency of proxy verification at the last AGM, so owners will never know if any fake proxies were used or if any genuine proxies were rejected.

13. No one has forced the present board to run for the election, if they are unable to reduce the costs for the owners, then they are free to resign and let more capable owners handle the affairs.

14. Financial comparison between similar sized condominiums is a very important step used for "Bench marking" so as to stay competitive. If one condo is spending millions of dollars more per year, then the question that every owner would like to know is:  "where is this money going ?"

15. Owners are willing to talk to the existing board to resolve these issues in an open discussion of owners.

16. Other contractors have quoted half the price of the owners are paying at present, and the remaining contracts should also be  explored by the Board with complete transparency to the owners.

17. Owners have a right to know details of all financial transactions, since they are the ones that are paying these expenses through their ownership and monthly condominium fees. The corporation belongs to all the 1343 the owners.