Not legal advice.

Is it real or an April Fools joke ? Or mischievous Leprechauns hung-over from St Patrick’s Day ?

A St.Patrick's Day press release yesterday declared on behalf of a Saskatchewan condo corporation, has attracted a lot of attention. And NOT just from the Leprechauns.

The Canada News section of the U.S. based Community Associations Network may be what initially triggered viral media reports about this article. Happens to be arriving mere weeks ahead of April Fools Day amidst a pretty grim Pandemic. https://communityassociations.net/international/canada/

Background

1 - By comparison to Ontario's legislated conservative investment security requirements, Saskatchewan's Condominium Property Act 1993 SS 1993 ch C-26.1 is superficially less stringent about how a legitimate condominium corporation can keep financial assets "safe" and available :

dwnld March 18/21 Sask’s Condominium Property Act, 1993, SS 1993, c C-26.1 https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/laws/stat/ss-1993-c-c-26.1/160708/ss-1993-c-c-26.1.html

see s 60 & 61 of Part 4 ‘Condominium Fees” :

. . . .Investment of funds

60(1) A corporation may invest any funds that are not immediately required by the corporation, but only in those investments in which a trustee may invest pursuant to The Trustee Act, 2009.

(2) Interest earned on the investment of a reserve fund or a common expenses fund is to be added to the fund and forms part of the fund. 1993, c.C-26.1, s.60; 2009, c.T-23.01, s.64. Holding and use of reserve funds

Holding and use of reserve funds

61(1) The moneys in a reserve fund of a corporation are an asset of the corporation.
(2) A corporation shall:

(a) keep the reserve fund in such a manner that the moneys in the fund, including interest, are readily identifiable at all times; and

(b) hold the reserve fund in trust for the purposes set out in subsection 55(3). (3) No part of a reserve fund is to be refunded or distributed to an owner of a unit unless the owner and the property cease to be governed by this Act. 1993, c.C-26.1, s.61. - unquote

2 - Canada's Western Provinces have historically produced some "dramatic" outcomes in shared ownership governance. It's far from just leaking B.C. stratas & flaming Alberta townhouse complexes.

In one shocker in a different western province, in 1995 a possee of current Building Scheme owners had allegedly "agreed" - verbally and on an alleged ongoing basis ( ! ) - to purport to strip from every future private property's titles an appurtenanced or 'glued-on' sorta share that had at creation effectively set up their common lands as an arms-length corporation's asset. Appurtenanced to each private title had been a share in a corporation itself having title to the common lands.

But what the 1995 possee purported to do was a voodoo stripping of each such ( appurtenanced ) share in the corporation owning the common lands. Trouble is, effecting such voodoo there are no signed documents ! No registered documents either. ie arguably 'the current owners robbing future owners' without changing ongoing conveyancing.

In an amazing coincidence , from the land titles office magically & conveniently disappeared what corresponds to the original registered Declaration of a conventional Ontario condominium community / ie the CCR's of a Building Scheme.

The ensuing but quiet legal carnage has been wrapped in some secrecy broken only when current day owners / victims eventually actually found themselves getting sued by the voodoo Common Lands corporation itself. Why ?

Because that voodoo body had next gone on to purportedly sell some common lands on which were later built multiple unit developments with defective titles . . . .

And who knows where the money went ? Not to the poor schmucks whose later purchase documents still referenced the original appurtenancing shares.

Many years later & pursued for deficient titles sold to the other later victims, the voodoo corporation had the chutzpah to seek - but fortunately failed to obtain - a Court Order stripping the corporation shares from the later-purchasers' titles as still lawfully referenced ! . . . Whatever has happened since then is unclear . . .

3 - So with such ever-possible context in mind :

St Paddy’s Day March 17/21 ( “News provided by Thornton Place Condominium Corporation “ ) Investment through cryptocurrency platform Kraken believed to be the first 'physical purchase' of Bitcoin by a Canadian condominium company
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/regina-based-thornton-place-condominium-corporation- invests-in-bitcoin-301248865.html

followed by numerous articles like

March 17/21 CBC Saskatchewan “Regina condo corporation invests in bitcoin; experts warn of risks, but lawyer says strategy is sound” by Laura Sciarpelletti https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-condo-bitcoin-investment-1.5953415

subtitle : “Regina-based Thornton Place Condominium Corporation bought 0.4 bitcoin for $25,000”

( Is the Saskatchewan condo corporation even real ? )

( If the report was serious, it sounded high risk for most condo Boards. )

There may be enough truth in the SASKATCHEWAN report that well-respected Ottawa condo lawyer JIM DAVIDSON has just addressed the illegality of such for ONTARIO CONDO FUNDS.

( But risky - ? crazy even ? - in the absence of a direct Ontario Building Scheme statute what's to DIRECTLY stop it within the wilder west of Building Schemes. . .? )

April 1/21 by lawyer Jim Davidson ( Davidon Houle Allen LLP ) “ Saskatchewan Condominium Corporation Purchases Bitcoin Interest” https://dhacondolaw.ca/condo-law-news/saskatchewan-condominium-corporation-purchases-bitcoin- interest/