Friday, March 15, 2019

British Columbia Law Institute

The BC Law Institute acts in the interests of profit for the legal profession, contrary to the interests of strata owners. It's members contribute confusion and strife, most noticeably misrepresenting SPA deductibles and replacement value insurance. Lawyers want to change the law for their own advantage and act like they did so when they haven't.  

BC Law Institute publications claim to  be based on public consultation, but public input is rudely ignored. Kevin Zakreski of the BC Law Institute said he would advise me of any decision that the committee makes regarding adding the issues I raised below, but he didn't keep his word. 

I understand that any committee has limited time and resources, so I could understand if issues raised in public consultation were honestly omitted. Obviously, the committee decided to ignore the issues I raised, but Mr. Zakreski wasn't ethical enough to tell me that, even though he said he would.  



Re: Strata Property Law Project
From:dianne.bond@yahoo.ca
To:kzakreski@bcli.org
Date:Friday, August 5, 2016, 6:37 a.m. PDT

Thank you. That's all I can ask.
Have a great weekend!


From: Kevin Zakreski
To: "dianne.bond@yahoo.ca"  
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Strata Property Law Project

To: Dianne Bond
Thanks for your message.
I will forward your correspondence to the committee. Its next meeting is scheduled for 18 August 2016. I will advise you after that date of any decision that the committee makes regarding adding the issues raised in your message to its work plan.
Kevin Zakreski
Staff Lawyer & Corporate Secretary
British Columbia Law Institute
1822 East Mall, University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC   V6T 1Z1
Tel.: (604) 827-5336    Fax: (604) 822-0144
From: Dianne Bond
Reply-To: Dianne Bond
Date: Thursday, 4August 2016 at 2:53 AM
To: Kevin Zakreski
Subject: Re: Strata Property Law Project
Yes, I understand. Thank you for your prompt response.

From: Kevin Zakreski
To: "dianne.bond@yahoo.ca"  
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Strata Property Law Project
To: Diane Bond
Thank you for your message, and for your interest in BCLI’s Strata Property Law Project—Phase Two.
The committee is meeting later this month to consider its work plan for the next phase of the project, which will involve governance, common-property, and land-title issues. May I pass along your email message for its consideration?
I should caution you that the committee has limited time and resources. It will have to make decisions on which issues to pursue and which it cannot. If it decides that it can’t pursue an issue, this isn’t meant to be a judgment on the issue’s importance.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Zakreski
Staff Lawyer & Corporate Secretary
British Columbia Law Institute
1822 East Mall, University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC   V6T 1Z1
Tel.: (604) 827-5336    Fax: (604) 822-0144
From: "dianne.bond@yahoo.ca"
Reply-To: "dianne.bond@yahoo.ca"
Date: Monday, 1August 2016 at 6:06 AM
To: Kevin Zakreski
Cc: Lawrence Bond
Subject: Strata Property Law Project
Thank you for your good work. Please consider addressing conflict of laws and conflicts in the strata agency and Law Society for your next project.
For example, the Strata Property Act (the "Act") says that the strata MUST repair and maintain common property but this becomes ambiguous when the Regulations say depreciation reports must identify common property and limited common property that the strata lot owner, and NOT the strata corporation, is responsible to maintain and repair. The historical loss and cost of unenforceable agreements arising out of contradictory laws have amounted to millions of dollars in our complex.
In about 1989/1990 my neighbour cut down a tree to cover the common property between our patios with wooden decking. When I came home from work and found out, she told me that she had permission from Garth Cambrey. When I complained to him he said the tree is gone and nothing can be done about it without tearing out the new decking, but trellis planters could screen direct views into the neighbouring homes so that there was no loss of privacy.
The lost tree was planted on a slope with a history of sinking by the developer's landscape architect pursuant to restrictive covenants that run with the land, and since it was removed contrary to the bylaws neighbouring windows were exposed to direct views, clear through to the ensuites, and both buildings required tens of thousands of dollars of structural repairs. No action to enforce the bylaws was taken by council, and the problem that the strata agent created was offloaded onto me, forcing me, under protest, to provide trellis planters on my strata plan patio at my own expense, Since then I have been deprived of outdoor dining space on my patio and use and enjoyment of common property while my continual and repeated requests for council to enforce the bylaws have been ignored for over 25 years - for the unjust enrichment of those acting contrary to the Act with the support of the strata management team.
According to the Limitation Act, the passage of time has not resulted in a right to adverse possession of common property, but it has resulted in ever growing loss to me and unjust enrichment to others while misrepresentations and legal fiction have resulted in repeated attacks on me with lawyers, police, and council acting contrary to the Act. This is so sickening that I cannot earn a living or manage the evidence to litigate, and it is depriving me of equal protection under the law and intimidating me out of exercising my constitutional right to stage a sit down protest against oppression and corrupt governance. Lawyers that I pay for with my strata fees take instructions that should raise an apprehension of misconduct in a competent professional, persistently act against me contrary to the Act, and claim to owe me no duty of care, the Law Society acts to offload its investigative burdens onto me, and judges act with immunity from liability for foreseeable damage arising out of systemic deference and bias.
In about 2004 we voted to approve a special levy for building envelope repairs, but before we voted the meeting was told that the word “decks” in the motion meant the buildings on the strata plan. I wanted to amend the motion to clarify that but the meeting was told that would add another layer of expense and delay because the motion was drafted by lawyers, the amendment would have to go back to the lawyers for approval, and it was not necessary because there was a contract and the contract was for the buildings on the strata plan.The building envelope repairs were completed in 2005 with about half a million dollars of surplus special levy funds that were supposed to be returned to the owners who paid the money, but instead the strata management team sabotaged strata plan patios by calling them “decks” and delaying their repair, created panoramic views by destroying trees, and left the common property in horrific condition for 5 years while the owners who paid the levy fled in droves.
Between 2005 and 2007 I submitted a variety of remedial proposals including several drawings of platform designs to get the trellis planters off of our strata plan patio which the strata management team ignored the same as it had ignored my complaints since about 1990. In 2007, Coquitlam complained about the decks that were added to the common property without a permit and threatened to fine the strata for non-compliant buildings existing beyond a set date.
At the AGM the owners approved my motion that those taking decks on the common property for their own exclusive use be given an option, to pay the expenses attributable to the existence of the decks in accordance with the bylaws or the relevant deck would be removed, but Tony Gioventu of CHOA acted in support of members of council acting in conflict for their own unjust enrichment and interfered with my motion so the wording was changed and the minutes recorded it as an unrecognizable nonsense argument, using words that were never mine. Council continued bypassing my requests for a remedial platform or enforcement of Bylaw 4, and, with the support of Mr. Gioventu, diverted the surplus special levy funds to demolition and construction of illegally added decks and creation of panoramic views contrary to the direction of the owners. The strata management team misrepresented the city work order and diverted the money contrary to the purpose of the special levy and bypassed my requests for a remedial platform.
My share of the levy surplus was about $7,000 to $10,000 (many times more than the cost of a 3x17 sq.ft. remedial platform) and diverting that money was not only significantly unfair, but in my opinion was fraudulent and illegal, so I began blogging about it atsunridgecoquitlam.blogspot.com  as the only corrective action within my means.
In 2014, after I could no longer work, I sought relief from the court, but I was forced to withdraw when I could not manage the evidence and was refused a stay of proceedings "fundamentally" because I did not provide a non-existent medical legal report from a deceased psychiatrist who I had not seen since at least 1992. My experience gives me reason to believe that corruption in the strata agency industry has become normalized, and, since it was left basically unchecked by the courts, what might happen with a part-time tribunal is pretty scary, in my opinion.
If you would like to meet or get more information to consider for your next project please do not hesitate to contact me. My phone number is 604-464-9642. Thank you kindly for your attention.

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Dianne Bond @ March 15, 2019   0 Comments