Like all of my strata blogs, I prepared this one for use on an as-needed basis only. It is not intended to be used in a malicious manner, nor do we support false claims or untrue accusations. I would much rather permanently delete my blogs and their associated contents than to live with the ongoing stress which is created by the necessity of their existence.

Correspondence - Requests for Repairs

_______________________________ 2003
July 23, 2003
My husband returned home, discovered Unit 409 flooded from Unit 510 above and immediately reported it to Strata Plan NW2671 via a phone call to Stratawest Management Ltd.
July 24-28, 2003
The strata corporation had Nordic Restorations remove our carpets and underlay and leave heaters, dehumidifiers, and industrial blow dryers running throughout our unit for 5 days.
We were dealing with unemployment at the time and had no escape to a daily job for temporary relief from the deafening noise and excruciating steam and heat.
The high decibel noise this equipment generated sounded like it must have been well over WCB work-safe levels, and it was continual 24-hours a day. The strata corporation left us with no hearing protection and not even a cautionary warning against harmful mold or the potential for hearing loss.
July 28, 2003
I discovered a 1999 report archived on the internet, which said that over 14,000 Canadian Crane toilet tanks had shattered and that Crane had lost a class action law suit. It warned that any toilet tank manufactured by Crane in Canada between 1980 and 1991 should be considered suspect.
I phoned Crane and discovered that the developer had installed toilets bearing one of the problem serial numbers, so I wrote to the strata corporation to request that owners be advised to contact Crane for toilet tank replacements before they burst.
The strata corporation eventually agreed to reimburse owners for the purchase and installation of replacement toilet tanks, up to a maximum amount of $45 each.
July 29, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation to advise that our hall walls and ceiling were buckled, our bathroom door no longer cleared the floor, and the ceiling in the garage was water stained. I reported that Nordic had taken away their air movers and dehumidifiers and advised that their moisture testing indicated that our walls were dry.
July 30, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation to report that we had cleared our schedule and stayed home that day as requested, but at 10:30 a.m., we were advised to cancel repairs until the next day and that restorations would not be finished until August 8 or 9, 2003.
July 31, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation (twice) to report more floor, door, and wallpaper damage. I noted the floor was warped and sank when you stood on it, all our interior doors had to be removed and a door was warped and could not be closed. (Note: Strata's door response was to leave it warped and crooked and just saw off enough to open and close it.)
I asked why our unit was not dried out with air movers or dehumidifiers when water from the unit above had flooded us on previous occasions. I don't recall receiving an answer, but I later discovered invoices for floor leveling compound for unit 510, while the strata remains willfully blind to the related damage to unit 409.
August 3, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation and reported that as of the day before our garage floor was still wet under my husband’s ruined papers, which had gone mouldy by the time we were able to remove them.
I expressed concern that the physical demands of moving household contents following the flood could cause irrepairable damage to my hips, since such heavy and prolonged weight bearing was identified as aggravating my congenital disabilities.
I asked why only one vehicle attended our unit just long enough to take out the carpets, leave air movers and dehumidifiers and test for moisture, when 6 vans and one large truck from On Side Restoration Service was now attending at another unit (227), day and night, including, but not limited to a Contents Division, Construction Division, and Carpet Division.
I asked how much the restoration service for the other unit was costing and how long it was expected to take in comparison to ours. I could not tell whether the strata corporation made hotel arrangements for the occupants, however, I requested even-handed treatment.
I received a response that contained no meaningful answers other than a claim that this treatment was even-handed.
August 5, 2003
The Strata Corporation wrote to owners saying that the strata corporation and its agents and insurers would accept no further responsibility or liability for damages resulting from a failed Crane toilet tank.
August 7, 2003
A lady on council told me verbally that unit 227 was receiving so much attention because it was wet for 2 days before anything was done. I wondered - who knew - and if they knew for 2 days - why the delay? When we were away we did not know how long the water was running - nor how long our unit was wet - but we reported it as an emergency as soon as someone came home. Whatever the period of time that unit 409 may have been left wet, it was too long, as the photos of the unrepaired damage to the building so clearly show.
I wrote to the strata corporation to ask whether the strata corporation was seeking compensation for building damage, or the $5,000 insurance deductible, from either Crane Canada or the unit owners responsible for the shattered toilet tanks. I received no reply to my questions. (How long is it reasonable to wait for answers? - Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Eternity?)
I confirmed that I would remove our wallpaper to avoid the possibility of the drywallers having to make extra trips to repair hidden damage.
August 8, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation to ask when the resolution for its new policy to accept no further responsibility or liability for damages resulting from a failed Crane toilet tank was moved and carried and where the motion was recorded.
I requested clarification with respect to how this policy tied in with the strata corporation’s obligation to repair the building structure and the premiums that all of the owners were obligated to pay the strata corporation for replacement cost insurance - specifically to protect the buildings from flood (and water) damage.
I received no answers to these questions and am still waiting.
August 9, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation to point out that the strata bylaws require the strata corporation to repair the building structure, and I asked why our carpets were being relaid without repairing the sinking floor beneath. I reported that a building contractor (who, in a social setting, had looked at the sinking in our floor at the top of the stairs) advised that it should be an easy job to reinforce the framing below to correct the sinking while the carpets were still up.
As usual, I received no answer to my question - and I am still waiting.
I expressed concern that leaving our sinking floor unrepaired would impair sales as the real estate disclosure statements would need a "Yes" answer to the question, "Are you aware of any structural problems with the premises, or other buildings on the property?"
In further regard to the Crane flood, I expressed concern that the drywaller had done only one coat on the bathroom repair since I revealed the damage hidden behind the wallpaper.
August 16, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation to report a circular water stain remaining on the hall ceiling, among other missed stains, and that more water damage was exposed at the bottom of the wall and around the electrical opening when I removed the rest of the wallpaper from the affected wall in our bathroom after my request that the workers remove said wallpaper was refused. I reported that the workman who attended for 4.5 hours on that day expected that someone could return to finish the rest of the painting on August 19, 2003.
August 18, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation to report that, in addition to the previously stated repair deficiencies, the ceiling was still buckled in the hall.
I asked what was supposed to be done about the sinking floor, crooked doors, and timing delays on the remaining repairs. No answer. Five years later these repairs remain outstanding.
August 20, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation (twice) to advise that when the workman attended on that day he stated that he did not get any of the messages I left concerning scheduling and repair issues, and that he had been told that the ceiling damage that was missed was not caused by water from the flood.
I noted that my husband was told that some damage may be a result of settling but reminded the strata corporation that, regardless of the number of contributing causes, the strata corporation must repair such structural damage.
August 24, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation to ask why the restorations to our unit, which we were told would be finished by August 8 or 9, were being delayed.
I also reported observing another dip in our floor close to the supporting pillar in our garage below and suggested that if there was evidence of settlement in the development to replace the trees and bushes to help stabilize the land. (They were removed to extend unit 407's deck.)
August 25, 2003
The strata corporation wrote saying that the problem with our floor was a separate unrelated structural problem that hopefully should be addressed as part of the building remediation and that, based upon an investigation with the Strata Corporation's insurer, the Strata Corporation, or its insurer, was responsible for the repair to our water damaged wall.
(Since an insurance investigator had never inspected the damage in our unit, I wondered how an investigation could take place - or how damage that suddenly sprung up from nowhere immediately after the flood was not in all probability triggered by the flood regardless of structural problems that were successfully repaired about 15 years earlier.)
I wrote to the strata corporation to ask that all my messages to the strata corporation be circulated to each member of council as strata council minutes did not include required votes on significant issues, or make any mention of the material issues in my correspondence.
This raised a concern that my correspondence was not being disclosed to council members properly, if at all, and that significant issues were being routinely decided (by an unknown party), in an improper manner, without the required vote, or an informed discussion (or any council discussion at all).
August 28, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation to advise that although the painter just said he had finished the painting, someone would have to come back and repair the missed damage where the colour sample was cut out and the workmanship on the bottom of the wall in the bathroom was unacceptable, and the warped ceiling from the flood that was missed before was still unrepaired.
August 29, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation to report an electrical problem in our ensuite and to respond to the strata corporation’s letter of August 23, 2003.
I expressed my view that when I attended the Council meeting that night my husband (who normally reclused himself entirely from issues involving our unit to avoid conflict of interest) was the only member of council who showed any interest in seeing that the powers of council to perform the duties of the strata corporation to act on the issues under discussion were exercised. I said I believed that the meeting was a filibuster and complained that the strata council was consistently failing to take constructive measures to resolve issues.
August 30, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation to request that payment on the flood restorations be held back until the structural damage to our unit was repaired. I also mentioned that, "The floor is still sinking and warped in several places, none of which was noticeable before the flood. In some places it is hard to tell whether the problem is from a seam in the carpet being reinforced after the flood, or from fresh warping of the floor."
September 16, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation in response to its letter of August 25, 2008, to object very strongly to delaying the structural repairs of our post-flood interior damage for a year or more just to include the repairs with the building envelope project - when there was never any evidence of our interior structural issues being associated in any way with the building envelope.
I confirmed that although our floors did not creak or display any noticeable signs of being uneven, warping, or sinking before the flood that those problems may indeed be related to structural settlement (BUT it was unlikely 15 years after construction, and settlement could not be reasonably expected to eliminate warping and sinking that on a balance of probabilities was caused by the flood the same as in unit 227 and was obviously triggered by water damage.)
I confirmed my understanding that Stratawest Management Ltd. would have Regent Maintenance contact us to make an assessment on whether the structural issues were an immediate safety concern before the new management contract with Bayside Property Services Ltd. went into effect. (No insurance investigator ever inspected the water damage to the interior of our strata lot.)
September 23, 2003
Based on my review of the strata records pursuant to legislated disclosure I wrote to the strata corporation to request a copy of Schedule A to an On Side Restoration insurance claim, dated August 3, 2003. (I assumed it must be for unit 227, which appeared to have been promptly and fully repaired in such a stark contrast to unit 409.)
I reported that Nordic had stated that it wanted to finish the job and had told us it was waiting for direction from the strata corporation, and that it did not seem reasonable to me for the strata corporation to force us to continue living indefinitely in such a distressing situation. I asked when the work on our unit would be completed.
September 30, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation detailing a series of unexplained electrical failures that we never had before the flood.
October 17, 2003
I wrote to the strata corporation asking what the strata corporation was going to do about Nordic leaving our flood damaged carpets so full of soap and water that I slipped on them and fell down the stairs when they left. I reported that our carpets were still not dry as I wrote - 48 hours after Nordic shampooed them - nearly 3 months after unit 510's shattered toilet tank flooded our unit on July 23, 2003.
_______________________________ 2004
May 31, 2004
I wrote to the new strata council to ask for the structural damage to our interior to be repaired without further delay, if it was now not going to be scheduled with or related to the building envelope repairs as previously indicated.
I tried to explain that a flooring company could not just install new flooring and ignore the damage to the structural substrate below. (In 2013 we have been waiting for 10 years to install new bathroom flooring and low-flow replacement toilets and feel that the long delays in completing our structural repairs are unreasonable and unfair.)
****
As I recall, in or about July 2004 Joan MacDougall, Property Manger, phoned me twice. The first time she seemed noticeably upset. She asked me about the water damage, and I told her our doors, walls, and floors were warped and that she should know the details as it was all documented in my correspondence to the strata corporation. Then she phoned back and said that she talked to the strata corporation's insurance company and was told we did not qualify for a claim - she gave no reason for this conclusion that I recall and did not tell me what the insurance company had been told, when it had received the information, or who was the source; however, no insurance investigator had inspected the damage to our unit at the time of loss, or ever, to the best of our knowledge, and we would have had to open the door to let them in. We don't understand how the eligibility of a claim that was never made could be decided on or denied, or why we could never access the relevant insurance policy no matter what we tried.
_______________________________ 2005
March 10, 2005
After waiting nearly 2 years for our structural problems to be addressed as part of the building remediation, I again wrote to another new strata council during the building envelope project asking what was going to be done to repair our warped walls and sinking floors, with the building rocking like a teeter totter, making loud cracking noises.
I reminded the strata corporation that repairs were delayed after the last flood with an implication that they would be addressed with the building envelope project.
March 20, 2005
I wrote to the strata corporation and advised that our hall wall, which was warped following the flood, was now cracking, our doors, which were cut up and hung crooked during the flood restoration, still could not be latched or locked, and some sporadic electrical problems following the flood continued.
I asked again for a vote by council to decide when this structural damage would be repaired so as to permit us to answer "No" to the question on the disclosure statement for sale asking if an owner is aware of any unrepaired damage.
October 5, 2005
Since an engineer who had looked at the unrepaired flood damage in our unit informally suggested that a construction company could probably repair it, I requested that the strata corporation engineer be retained to verify this information in a written report to the strata corporation.
I offered to pay for the report if no structural damage was evident and reminded the strata corporation in this regard that structural issues from settlement were obvious from our sinking deck.
_______________________________ 2006
March 20, 2006
I wrote to another new strata council about damage to our property value and loss of use and enjoyment of our home, requesting once again that the warping and other flood-related problems be remedied.
May 2, 2006
I wrote to the strata corporation requesting an explanation for the failure to respond to my outstanding requests for structural repairs to our unit.
June 10, 2006
I wrote to the strata corporation to point out and ensure that not much, if anything, regarding our interior structural repair issues, should be new information to Council members, unless my correspondence was not passed on to them.
I reported drywall cracking above our north-east window and requested that the unrepaired damage following the floods from 510 be repaired without further delay.
I provided a list of damages not apparent prior to that flood, but easily apparent in the period immediately following it, including:
1. floors sinking following flood from unit 510's burst toilet tank, so visitors say, "My goodness! What’s that?"
2. walls warped following unit 510's washer overflow and burst toilet tank floods, so sliding doors jammed and required realignment and then promptly broke the hardware (and never worked since, until my husband managed to find new wheels and had new holes drilled into the wheel frame, but the doors still don't fit well enough to be interchangeable because the walls are still crooked.)
3. floors warped, so door had to be cut for clearance
4. doors warped, so they won’t stay closed and don’t function properly, making locks useless
5. floor covering in kitchen ruined and warped in doorway (from multiple drain cleaner floods from unit 510's garberator whenever they prepared a holiday meal)
I complained that the strata corporation had us wait 2 years for the building envelope project until after the strata corporation’s flood claim insurance period expired, at which point in time the strata corporation told us to make a ludicrous claim for the outstanding repairs through our personal insurance, and that the strata corporation was now telling us that our warped floors, walls, and doors were just wear and tear, and that our sinking floor problem was just normal settlement, claiming that owners have to take care of such things on their own, as do-it-yourself projects.
I asked for a copy of any legal opinion that the strata corporation might have with respect to its structural repair policies.
My requests were futile, as usual.
July 16, 2006
I wrote to the strata corporation to ask that any resolutions or votes to deal with my outstanding requests for repairs be included in the minutes.
I asked that the minutes of meetings more accurately reflect: - sources for the cites used - outstanding requests - originating locations of floods - promptness of damage reports - delay in repairs, and - seriousness of the repairs required.
November 3, 2006
I wrote to the strata corporation to ask to see records of the insurance claims made as a result of Crane toilet tanks bursting. I requested that the flood damage to our unit be repaired without further delay.
November 4, 2006
I wrote to the strata corporation expressing concern about further harm to my lungs if exposed to toxic amounts of flooring compound in order to prepare for new floor coverings without the strata corporation repairing the structural damage to the substrate below.
_______________________________ 2007
January 27, 2007
I wrote to another new strata council as a reminder about the $5,000 insurance deductible the strata corporation paid for flood damage repairs to the other unit and attached a photo of our suitcase blocking the bedroom door to keep the cat out because the door won’t stay latched. I pointed out that the concrete column in our garage was out of plumb and that the concrete used in the supporting column appeared to be the type of mix that was supposed to be used for topping on the wood floor system in the upper units.
March 27, 2007
I pointed out to the strata corporation’s engineer, Tam London, the sinking circular area of our bedroom floor above the concrete column in the garage, the unstable substrate under our carpet where the floor structure flexes and there is nothing to screw it down to, the splitting wall in our hallway, and the doors warped so severely that they no longer latch to close off the entrances to our bathroom and bedrooms. I provided photos for reference.
I advised him of our concern with respect to the sale of our unit and the Real Estate Board’s Property Disclosure Statement for Strata Title Properties that asks under the STRUCTURAL section at 2. A., "Are you aware of any structural problems with any of the buildings on the property?" and at 2.G., "Are you aware of any leakage or unrepaired damage?" and with respect to obtaining repairs pursuant to the strata corporation bylaws and insurance I asked him whether to answer "yes" or "no" to the structural questions on the Property Disclosure Statement. As he was taking his instructions from the strata corporation he did not answer my question. He did not say a word about our sinking floors inh his report, in spite of my specifically asking him to do so. The strata corporation's instructions were to report on whether the warping of our doors was a structural problem, and he didn't think so - pointing out that it could be easily remedied. (If it could be so easily remedied, why has the strata failed to do so for more than 10 years?)
So it seems that to the strata engineer structural damage that poses a potential or immediate danger is recognized as a structural problem from an engineering perspective and certain elements of a building that are defined in a standard dictionary to be structural may be called "fixtures". 
However, our bylaws say structural damage, not structural problem, and the structural section of the property disclosure statement deals with damage and problem in 2 different questions - as the words damage and problem have 2 different meanings.
Despite all the strata's doubletalk, the fact remains that the strata engineer did write a report that relates the cause of our unrepaired internal warping to the flood and that the insurance covers full replacement repairs of water damage and that the strata corporation has an ongoing duty to complete those repairs.
July 7 & 10, 2007
I wrote to the strata corporation to respond to a 5-page letter dated June 19, 2007, sent to me by Adrienne Murray, one of its lawyers.
She stated that the strata corporation was advised that the leveling of floors was an owner’s responsibility (she elected not to cite the source or own the statement - nevertheless, I believe that only a lawyer would be qualified or licensed to advise on said responsibility) and she reiterated the strata engineer's comment about the warping of our interior doors not constituting a structural "problem".
Without quoting any law, dictionary, or strata records, I pointed out as politely as I could that the floors in my neighbour(s) units were levelled by the strata corporation, and that doors, walls, and floors are defined as structural elements of a building; warping, splitting, and sinking are damages to the building that need repair; repair of the building is what our bylaws require, and failure to repair causes a problem. (Many problems actually.)
Ms. Murray claimed that a strata corporation may not make decisions that prefer the interests of one owner or that favour a particular owner at the expense of others - so I tried to get her to explain how in our unit the strata corporation could leave unrepaired damage to our walls, doors, and floors that was caused by others, while in other units it repaired similar damage that the owners themselves were responsible for. I asked why we have to pay strata fees and insurance premiums when we do not receive repairs that are at least reasonably equivalent to those of these other units.
Despite periodic reminders, Ms Murray has never answered, and I am still waiting to find out why a lawyer would make statements that are so erroneous and damaging. Something is not right.
_______________________________ 2008
June 2008
A neighbour phoned me in her role as a member of council and asked if we had any interior damage, and I told her yes. I was very surprised that she was not aware of that already from all my correspondence.
I asked for her help - hoping for some even-handed treatment because I knew that she had direct personal experience with flood damage. This is because the caller was Eleanor Pederson, the owner of Unit 227, the unit that generated such extraordinary attention when her toilet tank broke and attracted the big truck and 6 vans in attendance day and night for approximately one week of high priority service shortly after our unit was flooded.
I asked her to present a motion that the strata corporation repair the damage to unit 409's floors, doors, and walls, or in the alternative, to at least engage in a comparative inspection of her unit and ours for a report on the condition of the post-flood repairs to both units. She informed me that she knew nothing about our unrepaired damage. (It was at that moment that I realized that as long as council members were not informed of correspondence strata blogs may in fact actually be necessary - which is what triggered this blog's creation.)
I told her the basic facts and said that all of the details should be available in the strata records. I offered to provide them to her directly, but she told me she didn’t want to know anything about it and instructed me not to provide such information to her. Willful blindness like this on the part of council was, and is, disappointing and upsetting.
July 15, 2008
I wrote to the strata corporation outlining 36 attempts, made over a 60-month, 5-year period, to have the strata corporation repair the flood-related damage to our unit.
I reminded the strata corporation of the negative impact on my health from the behaviour of the strata corporation. I reported that I was correspondingly experiencing more sleep loss, headaches, and bowel spasms arising out of the strata corporation’s treatment.
August 28, 2008
The strata corporation responded by writing, "Unless you have an emergency, please do not continue to harass the Strata Council by inundating them with your correspondence."
November 10, 2008
I wrote to the strata corporation in follow up to my email of August 30, 2003, reminding them that in that email I advised that, "The floor is still sinking and warped in several places, none of which was noticeable before the flood. In some places it is hard to tell whether the problem is from a seam in the carpet being reinforced after the flood, or from fresh warping of the floor."
I informed council that when the carpet was relaid there was a noticeable lump across the seam between the hallway and dining room, that the lumpy seam since collapsed into a noticeable sunken seam, and wear marks were showing in the areas where the warped doors had been dragging across the pile. I said the rest of our carpets and seams were still fine, but just as we had discovered more cracking in the closet the previous week, none of the damage was fixing itself.
December 3, 2008
I attended the December 3, 2008, meeting of council as an observer. The chair prevented me from observing how my letter was presented and dealt with by council. He alleged that the portion of the meeting open to observers was concluded and claimed that I had to leave the meeting.
Our strata bylaws state:
Council meetings
20.4 Owners and spouses of owners may attend council meetings as observers.
20.5 Despite bylaw 20.4. no observers may attend those portions of council meetings that deal with any of the following:
(a) bylaw contravention hearings under section 135 of the Act;
(b) rental restriction bylaw exemption hearings under section 144 of the Act;
(c) any other matters if the presence of observers would, in the council's opinion, unreasonably interfere with an individual's privacy.
I see no legitimate reason for the chair to exclude me from the meeting while my letter was discussed. Based on previous experiences with defamatory and/or fraudulent misrepresentations made behind my back to mislead members of council - and indications that certain members of council were deprived of copies of my letters - I suspect that it was primarily, if not solely, to deprive me of the ability to defend against more of the same misconduct. _______________________________ 2009
April 2009 AGM
I released my blogs to the owners for their information and strata resolved to hire a lawyer, from whom we have no response, 4 years later.

************************ 

Due to the actions of the strata our risks and expenses have been more than they would be in a single detached home, and our money and property and years have been wrongly wasted by others. We have paid twice, once with strata fees and then again personally, for benefits provided to others unfairly, including replacement windows, door hardware, mirrors, fixtures, floor coverings, trellis planters, opaque glass, bolts of cloth, snow removal, gardening services, landscaping, and loss of enjoyment, security, and health. We have lost earnings and needed social services and legal services we would not have required but for wrongful conduct of the strata corporation.

In December 2013, after over 10 years of various misrepresentations by strata corporation agents, we are still requesting structural repairs in accordance with the laws of the land - still trapped in limbo - still effectively unable to  install new floor coverings until the damaged substrate is repaired, and unable to sell our unit at fair market value until the unrepaired structural damage is repaired.

Water damage repairs provided in unit 409:
  • rental of industrial heaters, dehumidifiers, and blowers for approximately 5 days;
  • delivery, removal, and electric costs;
  • multiple trips over a 3-month period;
  • removing swing doors, making adjustments with a saw, and re-hanging so they close;
  • removing, drying, cleaning and re-installing carpets;
  • repairing drywall;
  • painting walls and ceilings, upstairs and downstairs;
  • repeatedly removing and replacing sliding doors and floor tracks;
Repairs not completed (to fixtures and structure, whether from water or settlement)  in unit 409:
  • warped, crooked, damaged door systems that stick, drag, and won't stay latched;
  • crooked, sinking, creaking floors;
  • damaged floor coverings;
  • cracked walls and frames.
The repairs that remain to be done in our strata lot are the most serious and expensive ones.

************************************************************

Maybe I just don't know how to read the minutes that have been recorded over the years, but I seldom see recognizable evidence of votes on critical issues.

PLEASE
PLEASE
 
COUNCIL MEMBERS PLEASE MAKE A MOTION 
TO HAVE THE REPAIRS TO UNIT 409 COMPLETED

Insurance, Strata Property Act, Regulation, Bylaws

I honestly believe the strata corporation has an ongoing double duty to provide the replacement cost repairs to our strata lot's water damaged doors, walls, and floors that we paid strata fees to insure, and to finish the repairs that it started in 409, and promised,  just as other units were repaired, or to compensate us for the cost of doing so.

Pursuant to section 149 of the Strata Property Act, it is mandatory that the strata property insurance cover not just the buildings, but also the fixtures installed as part of original construction - even when they are owned by the strata lot owner:

Strata Property Act
Part 9 — Insurance

Property insurance required for strata corporation
149 (1) The strata corporation must obtain and maintain property insurance on
(a) common property,
(b) common assets,
(c) buildings shown on the strata plan, and
(d) fixtures
built or installed on a strata lot, if the fixtures are built or installed by the owner developer as part of the original construction on the strata lot.
...
(4) The property insurance must
(a) be on the basis of full replacement value, and
(b) insure against major perils, as set out in the regulations...

****

Strata Property Regulation
B.C. Reg. 43/2000 O.C. 130/2000

Part 9 — Insurance
Definitions for section 149 of the Act
9.1 (1) For the purposes of sections 149 (1) (d) and 152 (b) of the Act, "fixtures" means items attached to a building, including floor and wall coverings and electrical and plumbing fixtures, but does not include, if they can be removed without damage to the building, refrigerators, stoves, dishwashers, microwaves, washers, dryers or other items.

(2) For the purposes of section 149 (4) (b) of the Act, "major perils" means the perils of fire, lightning, smoke, windstorm, hail, explosion, water escape, strikes, riots or civil commotion, impact by aircraft and vehicles, vandalism and malicious acts.
[am. B.C. Reg. 265/2000.]

All of the water damaged building structure and fixtures in unit 409 were built or installed by the owner developer as part of the original construction on the strata lot.

Strata Property Act
Part 5 — Property
Division 1 — General Property Matters

Repair of property
72 (3) The strata corporation may, by bylaw, take responsibility for the repair and maintenance of specified portions of a strata lot.

***
Bylaws, Strata Plan NW 2671- Sunridge Estates
The following extract is taken from the bylaws filed in the Land Title Office on February 5, 2002, under number BT41643, and a consolidation of all amendments up to and including Dec/08 as filed on Jul 18/05, Mar 9/07, and Apr 28/08:

Powers and Duties of Strata Corporation
11 Repair and maintenance of property by strata corporation
11.1 The strata corporation must repair and maintain all of the following ... (d) a strata lot, but the duty to repair and maintain it is restricted to ... (i) the structure of a building ...


***

WHAT IS ALL THIS SUPPOSED TO MEAN??

Well based on looking up the key words in a dictionary, structure of a building seems to include doors, repair seems to refer to damage, and sound condition is what unit 409 is not in.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
door
A movable structure used to close off an entrance, typically consisting of a panel that swings on hinges or that slides or rotates
repair
To restore to sound condition after damage or injury
damage
Harm or injury to property or a person, resulting in loss of value or the impairment of usefulness
Black's Law Dictionary
damage
Loss, injury, or deterioration caused by the negligence, design, or accident of one person to another, in respect of the latter's person or property

We do not understand how repairs of extensive damage to Unit 409 caused by an accident in the unit above us became our responsibility when damage to Unit 227 caused by an accident inside of their own unit solely was fully repaired by the strata - especially when we have paid for mandatory strata insurance for over 20 years in a total amount more than most, if not all, other owners - including units 227 and 510, the sources of the water damage and subsequent unfairness.

http://www.accountingglossary.net/
insurance
Insurance is a way to make an individuals financial losses more affordable by transferring them to a large group of people through an intermediary called an insurance company and a legal contract called a policy
full replacement value
Coverage that pays the full replacement value for a covered loss rather than just the initial cost less wear and tear or depreciation

****

Strata Property Act[SBC 1998] CHAPTER 43

Division 2 – Records
Strata corporation records

35 (2) The strata corporation must retain copies of all of the following:
... (g) written contracts to which the strata corporation is a party;

Access to records
36 (1) On receiving a request, the strata corporation must make the records and
documents referred to in section 35 available for inspection by, and provide
copies of them to ... an owner ...
(3) The strata corporation must comply with a request under subsection (1) or (2) within 2 weeks unless the request is in respect of bylaws or rules, in which case
the strata corporation must comply with the request within one week.
(4) The strata corporation may charge a fee for a copy of a record or document
provided under this section of not more than the amount set out in the regulations
and may refuse to supply the copy until the fee is paid.
The strata manager did not file an insurance claim for the water damage to unit 409 before the time to do so expired and since then repeatedly obstructed and refused my requests to access the written contract for the relevant insurance cover in spite of my writing for a copy, providing a cheque in payment at the rate of $.25 per page as set out in the regulations, and attempting to attend at the strata records office pursuant to the Strata Property Act, raising an apprehension that the strata was not insured at the time of loss on July 23, 2003.

******************
 
It is hard to tell what the strata's current position is based on besides the negligence of professionals, but as far as I can tell it might have something to do with setting aside the insurance and disclosure issues and making allegations that floors and doors and walls are not part of the structure of a building. 

Unit 409 is part of the building, and but for the structure of the walls, floors, and ceilings of our strata lot, Unit 510 and its burst toilet tank would have fallen straight into our garage.

In Oldaker v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1008, 2010 BCSC 776 (CanLII) at [37], the Court said
Present day statutory interpretation recognizes that insofar as the language of a provision allows, interpretations which are consonant with and which promote a clear legislative purpose should be adopted. This is not to say that a statute’s intended purpose can overwhelm the language of a provision. Instead, one seeks to ensure consistency between language and purpose and to achieve a result which is harmonious.
Although it may not be clear, it is possible that the obligation to repair the structure of the building is included in standard strata bylaws because the structure is a collective and integrated system.  If so, it does not say it excludes floors, walls, and doors as structural components of a building and it does not require damage to create such an immediate danger that it poses a structural problem before being repaired.

At the time of loss no insurance investigator or member of council inspected the changes to the structure and fixtures in our strata lot but the strata's engineer reported that unrepaired damage in Unit 409 was consistent with water damage. Although from an engineering perspective he didn't consider the damage that he reported on to be a problem structurally he expressly excluded reporting on our floors and the substrate in our strata lot and refused to inspect the (apparently water soluble) type of concrete used in the supporting column in the garage below.   

With respect to the Strata Property Act protective fairness provisions, in Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 5th ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2008) at p. 360, the author states: 

Related provisions. In adopting a contextual approach, the courts focus on any provision or series of provisions that in their opinion is capable of shedding light on the interpretive problem at hand. Looking to other provisions is useful because courts make certain assumptions about the way legislation is drafted. As Lord Reid wrote in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Hinchy:
... one assumes that, in drafting one clause of a bill, the draftsman had in mind the language and substance of other clauses and attributes to Parliament a comprehension of the whole Act.
More specifically, it is assumed that language is used consistently, that tautology is avoided, that the provisions of an Act all fit together to form a coherent and workable scheme.
Statutory provisions which purport to limit or restrict rights are generally construed narrowly: Sullivan at pp. 476-478. 

Something is very wrong when prohibitively high costs and systemic barriers cultivate corruption and effectively prevent people from accessing minimum protections enshrined in law.

Minutes, Deductibles, Disclosures, Engineers

When unit 510's toilet tank broke and caused water damage to not just unit 510, but in a much greater degree to unit 409 as well, the strata manager did not file an insurance claim. We do not know why.

We have never been able to find out why. However, a note on the Coastal Insurance renewal dated September 23, 2009, may shed some light on this. It states:
"This quotation is subject only to losses being satisfactory at the time of
renewal.."
I'm afraid that in this regard, May 23, 2003, may have been a critical moment in time; to the owners of unit 510 who were handling the insurance on behalf of the strata corporation, and to a new insurance policy which was being negotiated.

It is my understanding that the deductible for water damage up until some time in or about late May 2003 was $1,000, the same as the year before. After that a new insurance policy took effect with a $5,000 deductible. It has never been clear to us what exactly the deductible was on the day that the accident occurred.

If a claim for water damage was made immediately before the new policy was to be signed the negotiated terms may have changed.

No matter what the deductible was, the owners of unit 510 may have been been afraid that they could be held responsible for paying it and trivialized the accident to avoid an insurance claim being made.

In any case, I provided details of the damage to the strata corporation, every step of the way, but it was like I was shouting into an empty room.

No insurance adjuster investigated the damage, and all of my requests for a copy of the insurance details were persistently and inexplicably denied over the years.


*****************


The owners of unit 510 were the only ones who listed with Al MacLeod for years and I think he played a role. Strata management acted as if my correspondence did not exist, it just disappeared without explanation, and it was impossible for me to obtain a copy of the insurance policy from them.

Even if the deductible was 5 times higher than shown here 6 months before the accident,
the cost of replacement value repairs of the water damage to units 409 and unit 510 would obviously exceed the amount of the corresponding deductible at the time.

Coastal Insurance's October 1, 2009 renewal states that the "All Risks" Form, including Guaranteed Replacement Cost, now has a $10,000 deductible for water damage.

Coastal Insurance emphasises the word "Guaranteed" by setting it out in italics. It is my understanding that Guaranteed Replacement Cost repairs could not exclude water damage to the structural elements of a strata lot.






Both levels of unit 409 were flooded so severely that our downstairs was still wet and moldy over a week later, despite our downstairs drains and industrial heaters and blowers that ran 24 hours a day until the upper level was dry. It took the strata corporation nearly 3 months just to dry out the water, saw off our doors, repair our drywall and ceilings, paint, and clean our carpets, upstairs and down. Our walls, floors, and doors were so severely warped after the accident that hardware broke, walls cracked, floors sunk, and doors stuck or stopped staying open or latching shut.

After several years of delays and contradictions, the strata corporation hired an engineer to inspect the unrepaired damage to unit 409. He ignored the structural problems in our floors but confirmed in writing that the damage in our strata lot arose from escaping water. The strata manager advised us that it was our responsibility to repair it. We do not believe this, as the damage is of a nature that could only come from above, and the only water ever escaping in our unit has been from the unit above us. For the strata manager to claim that we are responsible is inconsistent with the terms of the insurance, bylaws, and Strata Property legislation, as well as the repairs provided to unit 227, whose owners were the cause of their own damage.

We have not been able to get council to look at the damage and we cannot sell without signing a Property Disclosure Statement that requires answers to question such as in the examples below:
  • What is the monthly maintenance fee per month? Does this include ... Insurance? ...
  • Are you aware of any structural problems with any of the buildings on the Property?
  • Are you aware of any damage due to water? Are you aware of any unrepaired damage?
After the water damage honest answers to these questions would oblige us to sell our unit as what our realtor calls "a fixer-upper" with a correspondingly lower price - adding further to the damage to us - and to the well-earned stigma to the reputation of the whole strata complex.


Strata's Response

The strata's response is to sweep the problems under the carpet and hope they will magically go away.
  1. No insurance investigator ever examined the damage to Unit 409.
  2. No member of council came to look at the damage.
  3. The strata told us the structural issues were to be dealt with during the building envelope project.
  4. The minutes and correspondence contain evidence of this plan.
  5. Strata management's time to file an insurance claim expired.
  6. The strata failed to complete the repairs promised to us by the strata corporation and strata enactments. 
  7. The strata corporation continually denied us access to the insurance policy.
  8. Adrienne Murray continually accused us of harassment for complaining.
  9. Al MacLeod repeatedly retaliated against us.
After doing a cosmetic cover up of the damage the strata corporation is treating repairs to the fixtures and structure of the building as our responsibility, suggesting that we should take it upon ourselves to try some kind of do-it-yourself project. We do not believe that these repairs are our responsibility.

Furthermore, we suspect that if we were to meddle with them when it is not our responsibility and we are not competent to do so, it could effectively transfer onto us potential liability and the risk of creating a hidden defect and more harm.

More than 10 years after the water damage occurred the structure of unit 409 remains unrepaired. No reasonable explanation to justify it has ever been provided to us. My requests for a copy of the insurance policy for the time of loss have been persistently and unreasonably denied - for no legitimate reason. Rather than apologize and make it right, the strata replaced Adrienne Murray with a new strata lawyer, but continues Ms. Murray's attack without regard to the actual facts.

Rant

Hopefully this blog will provide new owners and members of council with the facts they need to make informed decisions - as repair and maintenance obligations of the strata have been avoided by council members and strata agents contrary to the best interests of Owners for years, and we would like this to change. 

This is important. The strata is shirking and offloading more and more of its responsibilities onto vulnerable owners. It has reached the point that it has become normalized, as it is cheaper, faster, and easier to take care of it yourself than to sue the strata corporation. That is why we pay strata fees to cover maintenance and repairs that are the strata's responsibilities and end up paying for those things ourselves, effectively paying twice. The strata acts negligently, or corruptly, causes foreseeable damage, and unfairly offloads the predictable costs and devastation onto us. It is costing tens of thousands of dollars for Unit 409, and it is costing me my health and welfare.

Defective Crane toilet tanks
Defective building structure and tub installation
 
Defective electrical installation
 
 Destruction of landscaping
Destruction of trees and landscaping 














Flood damage to water soluble concrete















Water damage to building substrate
 

Destruction of common property
 
Destruction of trees
 







 
 
 
 
 
 
Geotechnical damage 











 
 
Geotechnical damage
Material defects

Voided warranties





 
Destruction of trees 


I am not talking about our own conduct or our own repair and maintenance responsibilities. The maintenance of common property and repairs of strata insured losses or defective building materials or labour that the developer, strata, or other owners are responsible for, or that the strata covers for units other than 409, fall under legislated protections and responsibilities, not the least of which is the duty to act honestly, in good faith, and in the best interests of Owners.

Legislation requires owners to pay strata fees - and in return requires the strata corporation to provide repairs and maintenance of buildings and common property and insurance against major perils such as water escape at full replacement value. We are continually paying strata fees for 25 years and the strata corporation is continually failing to provide the corresponding benefits to us. The strata has been repeatedly diverting strata funds to special interests, many corrupt and destructive, while we keep living with warped doors, damaged walls, and sinking floors. We are persistently subjected to retaliation and harassment for complaining about the damages caused to us by others, negligently, or maliciously.

The bylaws of Sunridge Estates require owners to pay strata fees - and in return requires the strata corporation to repair and maintain the common property - and the structure of the strata lot. We pay strata fees for benefits we are continually deprived of by significantly unfair actions of the strata corporation - including failure to provide insurance coverage or file an insurance claim before the time to do so expired, failure to complete repairs to damaged structures in our strata lot, failure to reinstate trees we paid a special levy to reinstate, failure to reinstate the function of our strata plan patio, and failure to treat us fairly. Council has been breaching duties specified in our bylaws for more than 10 years.

For more than 25 years we paid in good faith for benefits which we are deprived of by the strata corporation's unfair allocation of funds and failure to honour its legal obligations. Our lives should not be made miserable while the use and enjoyment of our property is spoiled for years while we wait for structural problems to create an immediate danger to safety or life before problems are remediated. It is council's duty to order replacement value repairs to the structural areas of our strata lot. Take away our sinking floors, and cracked walls that are the structure of our strata lot and unit 510 would fall straight into our garage.

The unrepaired damage to unit 409 remains. Such repairs are under the sole control of the strata corporation, which forbids individual owners from making repairs on their own. The strata's obligation is a LEGAL one, which is ongoing and unmet, creating over 10 years of disruption in our lives.

*******************************
We wanted to replace our carpets with laminate to relieve my allergies, but couldn't do it until the substrate was repaired. It is still not repaired.

I used to load our patio with plants and flowers every summer, lock the doors to our bedrooms and get a neighbour to come in to water, while we went away on vacation, but we were unable to do that because our warped doors would not stay latched while we waited for the strata for 10 years. We are still waiting, in a living nightmare that never ends.

We can't even screw our hose onto our taps anymore despite paying exorbitant premiums for the Willis warranty on the building envelope. We pay strata fees for insurance but do not get the benefits.

*******************************
The water damage in our unit was caused by the negligence of our former neighbours in Unit 510 above us, and we face the risk of further damage by the negligence of another former neighbour in Unit 411 next to us who eliminated the water shut off access from that strata lot. Although this may not worry anyone else, we would like the strata to provide confirmation that the original water shut off in that strata lot is restored before there is an accident.

*******************************

Repairs that the strata started in 2003 for water damage to our unit from an accident in unit 510 have not been completed; leaving our strata lot with warped doors, cracked walls, and sinking floors for more than 10 years. I have never been able to access to a copy of the relevant strata insurance or the information contained in it; so as usual I'm working as well as I can while wearing a blind fold, without access to material factual data.

I have no way of knowing whether the repair benefits of the insurance policy in effect at the time were incident-based or claim-based; and since the insurance policy was changed at some point in 2003, I don't even know for sure how much the deductible was on July 23, or even if there was strata insurance; however, I do know with certainty that:
  • no insurance investigator ever inspected the water damage to the interior of our strata lot;
  • strata management allowed the time period for making a claim for this accident to expire;
  • access to information I was legally entitled to was denied continually without legitimate reason;
  • the 2003 cost of the water damage to unit 227 was approximately $28,000, and
  • repairs of similar or greater damage to unit 409 are still not completed.
We would like these repairs completed. PLEASE. We would also like a reasonable explanation for the unfair allocation of funds to repair unit 227 and not unit 409; including the roles of Al MacLeod as a real estate professional and member of council, Gloria McGee as a commercial insurance sales professional and owner of unit 510, and their relationship with each other in the subsequent sale of unit 510 to city councillor and realtor, Mae Reid, who acted in a conflict of interest and diverted strata funds to demolish and reconstruct extra decks, which were added illegally to the common property, but are now cemented in concrete just as Unit 409 is glued in oppression.

Instead of filing the insurance claim strata management made us wait, alleging that the structural portion of the damage to our strata lot's walls, doors, and floors (damage which showed up suddenly just after, and right below, the accident) might be related to settlement and could be part of the building envelope and better included with that project if there was no immediate danger.


*******************************

This proved to be an unreasonable delay tactic and false diversion; the damage was obviously triggered by the accident - but for the accident none of our walls, doors, and floors in that area were cracked or warped or sinking. In 2003 our strata lot had not had a problem with settlement for 15 years - settlement did not become a problem again until about 2006 when the whole complex seemed to start settling after half the trees and most of the plants, all of which had all been planted pursuant to geotechnical restrictive covenants that run with the land, were removed and not replaced.

In any event geotechnical problems provide no protection or remedy for damage known to occur from water. We waited for repairs of the rest of the water damage - but the interior of our strata lot is not part of the building envelope - the water damage repairs to our unit were not completed with that project - or at all.
*******************************

I am unaware of any evidence in the minutes, or otherwise, that members of council ever voted to provide full replacement repairs to unit 227, unit 510, or unit 409 - either when we reported the loss, in the year after, or at any time at all. Council members inexplicably claim to know "nothing about it", and as stated so clearly by the councillor who owns unit 227, "don't want to know" anything about it, in spite of my prompt and repeated reports of damage and ongoing requests for repairs.

 The disparity here fits more into a noticeable pattern of arbitrary strata management, including misrepresentations, unfair allocation of funds, and a history of punitive and oppressive actions against the owners of unit 409.

 

*******************************

 

Property managers enabled by members of strata councils did not abide by the Strata Property Act and penalized Unit 409 for trying to expose their conduct.

Even though the minutes reported on the delays and the strata engineer reported in writing that the unrepaired damage in Unit 409 is consistent with water damage, councils are presumably fueled Unit 409's history of sinking and fear arising out of over $50,000 for repairs over a decade ago to Unit 407 for structural damage and to Unit 227 for water damage, and no evidence of strata insurance on July 23, 2003.

Persistent failure to provide insurance records and generally accepted practices in trades and professions with intent to control discount the word of law. Worst of all, strata lawyers abusing strata legislation and defending unfair treatment and libelous character assignation provides continual support in a chain of abuse that we have never been able to control.

Despite professionals through the strata agency, insurance, construction, and legal industries holding out interpretations of convenience that conflict with the Strata Property Act and Interpretation Act, the word of law is not a guideline, it is LAW, and if it is not true, it is at least 
 
 SUPPOSED TO BE THE LAW!