You are considered a foreigner if;
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Posted: 25 Jun 2019 06:31 AM PDT
In a previous blog post we wrote about the requirements for shared facility managers to be licenced where one or more of the parties to the shared facility agreement is a condominium corporation. This is a new requirement recently introduced when the Condominium Management Services Act, 2015 (“CMSA”) came into effect.
This is just one issue that has come up recently concerning shared facilities however, condominium corporations continue to face challenges working with other parties, in governing and operating shared facilities. Each party, whether it is a condominium corporation, a retail/commercial owner or the developer, may have different objectives and this often leads to very lengthy and costly disputes.
It is important that board members and management take the time to understand the terms of shared facility agreements (also referred to as reciprocal or cost sharing agreements) and know what items are covered in the agreement and how decisions are made. Many board members are surprised to learn that decisions may be made by unanimous agreement, that there is no shared facility management provided for or/and no reserve fund for shared facilities.
It is usually when disputes arise, that board members and management, look to legal counsel to review the agreement and soon discover what the issues are.
Here are a list of 8 top issues with Shared Facility Agreements:
1. Unanimous decision making. If parties don’t agree, how can decisions be made?
2. Agreement does not provide for a shared facilities manager. Who manages the shared facilities?
3. Agreement provides for a shared facilities manager who was appointed by the developer and one or more parties want to terminate that management company. Unanimous decision making prevents termination of management if one party objects.
4. Missing shared facility items. An item clearly being shared is not listed as a shared item. Who pays for the cost and what portion of those costs?
5. Proportionate shares of contribution are not equitable. The shared facilities agreement provided by the developer, will set out each parties respective proportionate share of costs relating to the shared facilities. It is down the road when the shared facilities are in operation, that it becomes evident that the split between the parties clearly favours one over the other.
6. Shared facilities reserve fund is not in the agreement nor is a shared facilities reserve fund study required. If there is no shared facilities reserve fund referred to in the agreement, then each party will contribute to their own reserve fund which will cover that portion of the shared facilities located within their property. Commercial/retail owners, if a party to the agreement, would not require that a reserve fund be maintained for any shared facilities located within the boundaries of their property. This gives less control to the other parties over reserve fund repairs to the shared facilities.
7. No shared facility committee. Yes, there are agreements in which one party will manage the shared facilities and just report to the other. Decision making is made by one with the others only able to dispute decisions through mediation/arbitration proceedings.
8. Quorum for shared facility meetings. All parties must show up to make quorum. What do you do when one party fails to attend?If possible, the best solution to all these issues is to amend the shared facilities agreement, otherwise, condominium corporations will be faced with long drawn out legal proceedings. Unfortunately, as is most often the case, it is only when proceedings are commenced that parties soon realize that the amendments are clearly the only way forward.
Next let's talk about Privately Owned Patios.... like between The Firken and Eden in Humber Bay Shore...
Thursday, June 20, 2019
How do I know how much I have to pay back?
- You receive a 5% incentive of the home’s purchase price of $200,000, or $10,000. If your home value increases to $300,000 your payback would be 5% of the current value or $15,000.
- You receive a 10% incentive of the home’s purchase price of $200,000, or $20,000 and your home value decreases to $150,000, your repayment value will be 10% of the current value or $15,000.
You can repay the Incentive at any time without a pre-payment penalty. You have to repay the Incentive after 25 years or if the property is sold. The repayment of the Incentive is based on the property’s fair market value:
NOTE: If your property value goes down, you are still responsible for repaying the shared equity mortgage based on the current home value at time of repayment.
@GarthTurner says First, the 5% Justin-mortgage-helper limits the borrowed amount to four times the income of the borrower ($120,000 or less), which is less than the banks now offer every day. The formula also limits the purchase price to around $500,000, which buys a nice garage in Kits. But the worst aspect of this plan is the pay-back.
Once a borrower signs on for a shared-equity mortgage they’re obligated to share any gain with the feds after 25 years, or when the property’s sold. Since the purchase price is low, odds are the kids are buying fixer-uppers and will pour a lot of extra cash into renos over the next few years. Add in any market appreciation, and you can see the problem. A 5% helping hand on the original low purchase price can turn into a big cheque to Ottawa upon the sale a decade or two later – coming right out of the tax-free principal residence capital gains exemption.
Now, why would anyone sign on for that? And yet will federal advertising for this program?
Thursday, May 30, 2019
Are you ready to try it?
Book an appointment now.
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
Some time ago we blogged about a lawsuit commenced by several condo owners in New Jersey against their condominium association after it instituted rules that restricted mixed-gender swimming in the association’s pool.
Approximately two-thirds of the condo residents are Orthodox Jews, whose faith prohibits men and women from bathing together. In order to accommodate the religious residents, the condominium association implemented rules that allow mixed-gender swimming only on Saturdays (which is the Jewish Sabbath and a day when the religious residents would not be using the swimming pool), and for two hours daily on the other days between 1:00 pm and 3:00 pm. For the balance of the week, time periods were allocated for separate men only and women only usage of the pool, 32.5 hours for men and 33.5 hours for men. However only 3 ½ hours were allocated for women on weeknight evenings, while 16 ½ hours were allocated for men on weeknight evenings. This detrimentally affected women who were employed during the day. In addition, the entire period from 4:00 pm onwards on Fridays was allocated to men. The condominium association tried to justify this disparity on the basis that Orthodox women would be busy on Friday afternoons preparing for the Sabbath.
The plaintiff owners claimed that the pool rules were discriminatory and in contravention of the federal Fair Housing Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. They commenced the lawsuit after they were fined by the association for swimming during the hours reserved for the opposite sex.
In January a judge ruled that the separate swim hours were not discriminatory as they applied to both sexes. However, that decision was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Appeals Court determined that although approximately an equal number of hours were allocated to each sex, the rules discriminated against women as only 3 ½ hours were allocated for women on weeknight evenings, while 16 ½ hours were allocated for men on weeknight evenings.
It is interesting to note that the Court did not rule that the implementation of separate swimming hours for men and women for religious reasons was in itself discriminatory. While theses rules were implemented for religious reasons pertinent to Orthodox Jews, they applied to all of the residents regardless of their religious beliefs. As a result, some freedoms of the non-religious residents were curtailed in order to accommodate the religious beliefs of the majority of the residents. On the other hand, if the condominium association did not implement separate gender swimming hours, the failure to do so would have curtailed the freedom of the religious owners to enjoy the pool while still complying with their religious principles.
What are the rules in your condo?
What are the rules in your condo?
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
An Excellent perspective.
A reverse mortgage is simple. You get a bag of money to spend on anything and never have to pay it back. In return the lender goes on the title of your house and charges you interest and fees that you never really see. So over time the debt grows – the opposite of a conventional mortgage. The money is eventually returned to the lender when you sell the property or croak, in which case your estate pays.
The advantage is tax-free funds and no payments. The disadvantage is you’re eating up your real estate equity every month. For example, a 70-year-old living in a paid-for $1 million house, qualifies for a reverse mortgage of about $350,000. If that cash lasts for ten years of expenses, at age 80 the reverse mortgage debt will have grown to $670,000. Seven years later it will top $1 million. The heirs will be pissed.Want it? https://www.greaterfool.ca/2019/04/23/in-reverse/
What you want can bite you later
Call to book an appointment
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
In a recent case, Friedich v. MTCC No. 1018, a condominium resident unsuccessfully sued the condo corporation after his vehicle had been vandalized.
The corporation had made changes to its security for the garage. The previous telephone entry system was replaced by closed circuit televisions and security guard patrols every two hours.
The resident alleged that the changes to garage security resulted in easy access to vandals. He argued that the corporation had breached its obligation contained in section 17 of the Condominium Act, 1998, to control, manage and administer the common elements and was also negligent under the Occupiers’ Liability Act in failing to keep the parking garage secure.
The resident’s case was dismissed after the Court concluded that the resident did not provide any evidence that the change in the garage security made it more likely that his car would be vandalized or that the corporation’s security protocol fell below industry standards. The resident did not even provide any evidence to substantiate that his car had been vandalized while in the parking garage.
The Court stated that the corporation was not an insurer and determined that if there was any vandalism that occurred to the resident’s vehicle while in the garage, the damage was caused by criminals, not the condominium corporation. The Court found that the corporation had acted reasonably in hiring the security firm and that there was no evidence that the security firm did not discharge its duties in a professional and reputable manner.
The Court decision was upheld on appeal to the Superior Court of Justice. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the fact that the resident failed to establish that the corporation had breached the standard of care required under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.
The Superior Court also acknowledged that the Board’s business judgment concerning the security system was entitled to deference. The Ontario Court of Appeal has recognized that the “business judgment rule” applies to condominium board decisions. As long as the board of directors has acted honestly and in good faith and exercised the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances, the courts will give deference to board decisions. Directors who have met the requisite standard of care won’t have to worry about the court “second-guessing” board decisions.