Protect the public from chicanery

Membership in the BC Law Society does not authorize lawyers to pervert the law or usurp binding legislation, but in practice that is exactly what strata lawyers are doing, injuring or endangering the public and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute to churn up profitable strife. 

With respect to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, the quote from Veronica Franco of Clark Wilson, which I set out below is an excerpt from her anything but innocent perversions of s.72 repairs and s.149 insurance that deceptively suppress or keep back material sections of the SPA. 

Where there is no insurance coverage, the duty to repair a strata lot falls to the strata lot owner, subject only to any bylaws that make the strata corporation responsible for the repair and maintenance of portions of a strata lot. In practice, this means that strata corporations with section 8 of the Standard Bylaws to the Act are responsible for stopping the leak, drying the structure (i.e. the wood joists and framing within the walls). Once those initial emergency repairs are completed, then the owner is responsible for any damage to the walls, floors and ceilings damaged by the water. CW8090699.1

The truth is, s.149 provides "no insurance coverage" for routine s.72 repairs and maintence, but that is totally irrelevant to damage from water escape. INSURANCE COVERAGE for major perils, such as water escape, is mandatory at full replacement value under s.149. So contrary to what Ms. Franco claims, the strata is not only responsible for stopping the leak and drying the structure, it is also responsible for providing repairs of the building as a common expense under s.158 until the deductible amount is reached pursuant to s.149 and Regulation 9.1, including fixtures attached to the building, such as floor and wall coverings and electrical and plumbing fixtures in the strata lot as built.   

"In practice" Ms. Franco deceives readers, contrary to the benefit of owners, and perverts s.149 and the whole of Part 9 Insurance in the SPA. Contrary to Ms. Franco's claims, the owner is NOT responsible for the walls, floors, and ceilings damaged by the water, unless the strata can prove to a court that the owner was responsible for the loss, and standard bylaws, which refer to routine repairs and maintenance are irrelevant in regard to damage from water escape. In addition, pursuant to s.121, any other bylaws are unenforceable to the extent that they conflict with the SPA.  

I use the word fraudulent in the context set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Redican v. Nesbitt, [1924] SCR 135, 1923 CanLII 10 (SCC), where a false statement is fraudulent when made knowing it was false, or recklessly, careless whether it were true of false with intent it shall be acted upon in one's own interest. 

Clark Wilson has a habit of giving fraudulent legal advice to stratas in everything from disclosure of strata records to insurance and repair obligations, and Ms. Franco should be fired and barred from such unauthorized practice of law. The chicanery she practices was unfortunately adopted by CRT tribunal members when they had not yet developed any special expertise in strata matters. 

After 4 years experience, it is time for the CRT to stop being led down this dangerous path by those acting in violation of the SPA in conflicts of interest contrary to the benefit of owners of strata property.  Owners of strata property have to be able to rely on the law, and to do so, the CRT has to fire tribunal members such as Kate Campbell, who was hired with no special expertise in strata law, and acts in arrogant disregard. Some people are unteachable, but some are morally reprehensible. 

At this point in time, critical analysis of legal opinions and court or tribunal decisions is required to identify fraudulent ommissions or deliberate arrangements of order that confuse and mislead most readers. Such betrayal of trust is the antithesis to resolving disputes justly or affecting positive social change in strata life.

UNFORTUNATELY, I forgot to include the part above in the part below, which makes it difficult to make sense of my message. This KIND OF MISTAKE is a hallmark of the PTSD that impairs my ability to function efficiently and effectively enough to organize the evidence required to defend myself and others from oppression. I don't let it stop me though. I just keep on doing the best I can to help for whatever it's worth. 

  

From: dianne.bond@yahoo.ca <dianne.bond@yahoo.ca>
To: Veronica Franco <vpf@cwilson.com>

Cc: Choa Bc Support <info@choa.bc.ca>; Canadian Condominium Institute CCI - Vancouver Chapter <socialmedia@ccivancouver.ca>; Visoa Bc Administrator <administrator@visoa.bc.ca>; Kevin Zakreski <kzakreski@bcli.org>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020, 10:00:26 a.m. PDT

Subject: Chicanery

FYI I have posted the following information online. 

People keep asking me about strata insurance...

Veronica Franco from Clark Wilson wrote to our property management company in a letter dated March 25, 2015, saying that,

"Section 149(1) of the Act sets out the duty to insure. In addition to the common property, a strata corporation has a duty to insure the buildings shown in the strata plan. This would include such things as the walls and ceilings even though the walls and ceilings are part of the strata lot. Similarly, a strata corporation must insure fixtures built or installed in a strata lot if they were installed by the owner developer as part of the original construction of the strata lot. This requirement to insure fixtures exists even though most of these fixtures (i.e. kitchen cabinetry and flooring) are part of the strata lot. In short, this means that the strata corporation is required to insure under section 149(1) many items beyond that which it is required to repair and maintain under section 72 of the Act."

HOWEVER, the owner is responsible for any difference between original fixtures and upgrades, and if the the strata can prove that the owner is responsible for the cause of the damage, the strata can sue to recover the deductible under s.158(2).

Section 72 of the SPA applies to uninsured damage, such as damage to owner upgrades to the original fixtures, or damage from perils that are not insured under the strata policy, such as routine maintenance or deliberate arson or vandalism by an owner, not the deductible amount that's self-insured by the strata. Nothing in s.72 takes precedence over, or conflicts with, Part 9 of the SPA.

The end result is that where there is s.149(4)(b) damage from an insured peril, such as water escape defined under Reg.9.1(2), the strata pays the deductible amount as a self insured common expense under s.158(1).

If the damage exceeds the deductible amount, then the strata corporation's insurer pays for everything above the deductible except for upgrades. Either way, damage from insured perils is covered at full replacement value under s.149(4)(a), it is not discounted by the deductible or bylaws in any way. Under s.121 bylaws are enforceable to the extent they conflict with the SPA.

Whether the cost of repairs is paid by the insurance company or the strata out of the CRF or special levy under s.158(3), the funds are held in trust either way, and under s.159(a) any decision not to repair or replace requires a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote at an annual or special general meeting, and s.35 requires that the decision be recorded in the minutes.

Case law that suggests otherwise is distinguishable on the basis that one or more material sections of the SPA were not considered, or were taken out of context. Check it out.

I am a retired paralegal, not a lawyer, but anyone who "Likes" this information and wants to share it with their lawyer, strata council, property manager, adjudicator, or other owners has my permission

I hate to be unfair or misleading, so please correct me if you perceive anything I've said to be anything other than the truth and nothing but the truth, and I will take corrective action to address any such concerns. The "whole" truth is another issue in regard to what appears to be expertly crafted deception by Ms. Franco and CHOA, which I refrained from mentioning in this post, but I am mentioning now and in this regard bring your attention to the following cite: 

Fraud may consist as well in the suppression of what is true as in the representation of what is false. If a man professing to answer a question, select those facts only which are likely to give a credit to the person of whom he speaks, and keep back the rest, he is a more artful knave than he who tells a direct falsehood. Heath, J., Tapp v. Lee (1803), 3 Bos. & Pull, 371; Park, J., Foster v. Charles (1830), 4 M. & P. 70.