( neither a legal nor architectural opinion )
A
$ 5 Million November 2019 FOR SALE ad - placed by the Board of
Hamilton's Wentworth C.C. # 96 historically designated SANDYFORD PLACE ( 1858 ) - plus some litigation & Tribunal appeals - appear to have triggered an alert
G & M Globe & Mail article in late February 2020. It's entitled :
" Eleven owners of heritage Hamilton condo building facing $ 3 MILLION repair bill "
Some background litigation & Tribunal outcomes add significantly to the backstory.
Comment was refused to the G&M by Sandyford Place's 3 person condo Board.
BUT the Feb 22 2020 article by G&M's
Shane Dingman adds some interesting colour comment.
( Note :
Reading such article requires a G&M subscription. OR requires finding it where apparently licensed one-shot to a giant U.S. online community association group ).
1 -
Shane Dingman's G&M article also includes insights from a lawyer & a realtor involved in what is claimed to still be Ontario's first & only completed sale process using the
Condominium Act 1998 's section 124.
Section 124 technically requires pre-approval by 80 % of units PLUS a CONSENT approval by 80 % of encumbrancers such as lenders. ( So yes, technically such 80-80 approval process requires a bifurcated
"vote" &
"consent" steps. )
Driven in 2017 to capitalize on re-development in Toronto's central core, the process required
80 % and 80 % dual approvals separately by owners & encumbrancers/lenders at Toronto's 27 unit
39 Roehampton. See : a prior CAFCOR ( Directors ) topic entitled “
CONDOBUSINESS : 39 Roehampton complex sold by owner vote “
https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=18699&catid=9 .
2 -
But now at HAMILTON's downtown twelve unit SANDYFORD PLACE - an
1858 Renaissance Revival row of historically designated townhouses subject to
exterior easement restrictions thank the Gods ( ! ), the immediacy is
reserve short-funding. The litigation & interviews suggest a Reserve Fund shortfall of
$ 1.5 M to $ 3 M being faced by the 11 owners of the 12 unit community.
A quarter million dollars or more PER UNIT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT as an alternative, might be 'small change' by Toronto or Vancouver standards.
BUT in Hamilton it's significant for some longtime owners
unable to personally qualify to borrow such EVEN IF Sandyford Place instead embraces a Borrowing By-law.
That's of course INSTEAD of an 80 - 80 process to try to terminate / sell the whole condo community under section 124 of Ontario's
Condominium Act 1998.
TEN ( 10 ) unit owner votes ( of the 12 Sandyford Place units ) would carry the 80 % unit owner part of the section 124 twinned approvals unless judicial intervention occurs.
3 -
Further it's unclear how much is grasped about the Heritage ( exterior ) Easement(s) thankfully on titles . Such easement ( & possibly other encumbrances & municipal demolition controls ) are available to SLOW DOWN or COMPLICATE a threat to Sandyford Place's heritage- designated 19th century Renaissance Revival architectural values.
But also to respect the years of community struggle & funding that won a "goal line stand" to halt demolition of remaining local examples of this impressive architectural style .
It's not merely about "security of housing". Nor merely about 'seniors v investors contemplating re-development profits' .
Four decades ago donations had been pried from three levels of government, such culminating in a 1979 ( whether ? 1976 by a different source )
city purchase from prior owners seeking demolition.
To re-launch the structure on a hopefully viable basis, such was followed by installation of rearside elevator & balconies. ( Pictures show a square rearside silo exteriorly accessing a common exterior balcony for each floor. )
Then in 1984 after installation of HERITAGE EASEMENTS onto title, such reportedly culminated in the townhouse complex being relaunched
as a private condo corporation. BUT was that arguably too shaky a re-purposing vehicle to protect what was held worthy of historical designation during some shaky political times . . . ?
4 - AND SO four ( 4 ) decades later, have the now short-funded condo owners respected the MULTIPLE stewardships ?
5 - Further a lawyer / longest owner / former President has lost an
initial round of litigation claiming OPPRESSIVE UNDER-RESPONSE to the deterioration of the 162 year old building & its later vintage rearside elevator & balconies.
Same outcome at
OHRT Ontario's
Human Rights Tribunal with arguments that mere repairs to the sometimes inoperable elevator are short of reasonable "accommodation of disability" and instead require FULL REPLACEMENT ( along with balcony fixes, possibly $ 1.6 M or more of the reserve shortfall ).
Her fight to halt the Board's section 124 overture, raises a complication or deterrent to a Section 124 termination. Both appeals processes might have been seen as an alternative - albeit pricey - to passively waiting for the Board's Business Judgment to set the pace. But they fail so far.
More to come . . .
) 
Should Ontario's threshold for condo Oppression NOW get raised even higher by requiring "bad faith" instead of something lesser like incompetent disregard or What Us Worry ? 
