DESIGNER EVICTION

Security camera peering down over shed roof

into neighbour's back yard

On May 2, 2014, the Property Manager and maintenance man installed front and rear security cameras on the unit next door to a member the Board of Directors chose to evict.  

On June 11, 2014 a month after police notified the co-op that this was illegal, the police entered the unit outfitted with the cameras and repositioned them.  They stated in no uncertain terms that if the cameras were moved, to call them and they'd come back and address the situation again.

The Property Manager at the Member's Appeal Meeting stated that the cameras only 'looked' like they were focusing in on the potential evictee's backyard and driveway.  The reason:  It only seemed as though the cameras were pointed that way because of the siding of the building - besides which these cameras were being tested because other cameras were going to be placed around the co-op.

The member whose unit the cameras were mounted on stated that her flowers had once been trampled.  The front camera pointed directly down on the targeted member's driveway nowhere near any flowers, both backyards are fenced in and the camera was pointed directly into the neighbour's yard.  

The Property Manager stated that the Board of Directors had photos of a water bowl and a feeding dish for cats and that constituted the grounds for evicting the member - she had violated By-law 26 - Feeding animals and wildlife.

By-law 26 - Enforcement states:

1.  For the first violation the Co-op will issue a written warning.
2. For the second violation, the member will be issued a $25.00 fine.
3.  For the third and subsequent violation, the member will be issued a $50.00 [fine] and a notice to appear before the Board of Directors.

The member received a Notice to Appear before the Board of Directors for a $25.00 fine, with no deadline for payment.  In so doing, the Board of Directors violated their own By-law.

The Property Manager had an answer for that:  The Board of Directors didn't 'feel' like giving the member in question a $50.00 fine; instead they chose to evict her.

The Property Manager distributed a list of complaint letters replete with names and dates going back to 1996.  The member attended her Hearing before the Board of Directors on April 29, 2014 and lo and behold a complaint letter written by my next-door neighbour was received by the co-op on April 28, 2014!   (My neighbour told me about an incident which happened several years ago - bird poop on the roof of her car attributed to birds attracted to a bird feeder). The Board of Directors did their homework unscrupulously well.

The Board of Directors declared that the member did not meet the co-op's standards for co-operative living and so declared her a 'Nuisance'.  

Now my next-door neighbour who complained about the bird poop on the roof of her car, has never attended one meeting in the co-op in the decades she's been here, but she meets the 'coop's standards for co-operative living' as do all the other members who are in non-compliance with the co-op's by-laws and policies as we speak.  

The meeting was raucous - members were shouted at by the CHF Chairperson and members shouted right back at him.  He warned a member that he would call police.  Someone most likely did because three patrol officers on bikes (we live beside a park) were soon at the front walkway of our office building.

It was voting time.  The Property Manager handed out ballots in a candy bowl fashion.  She stated that they didn't need to do this in an organized way because she could remember everyone she had given a ballot to.  Fifteen seconds later when my husband asked for a ballot, without missing a beat, she taunted, 'Didn't I give you one before?' And then - she gave him one.  To quote one of her admonitions to a member:  You don't know WHO you are dealing with.

Well, some members are realizing who they are chillingly dealing with.

The vote was NOT to evict the member.

TAKE NOTICE - AGAIN

The following are Notices of Entry for one year. These do not include when work is done in a unit or repeat 'visits'.  The fire alarm inspection, plumbing inspections and annual inspection could all have been done in one inspection - they used to be. All these Notices of Entry erode members' rights to peaceful enjoyment of their units - their homes  - and actually create a sense of insecurity.

1. Plumbing Inspection - June 17, 2013.*

2. Smoke Detector Inspection - July 22, 2013 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.  The member is not required to be home, but if the co-op does not have a key to a member's unit, a locksmith will be called and the member will be charged. 

3. Pest Control Notice - October 21, 2013.  

4.  Furnace Maintenance - October 22, 2013 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

5. Annual Unit Inspection - November 11, 2013 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

6. Plumbing Inspection - April 7, 2014 - between 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.*

7. Sump Pump Upgrade - May 13, 2014 between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.

One would think that a 4-hour time frame to enter a unit would suffice, but not in this co-op.  

* The Plumbing Inspections were done in choice units, not because of high water consumption, but rather to harass and intimidate members. Privileged members continue to endlessly water their lawns and let their children play under water hoses, while other members must ration their use of water.

THE (IN) DECISION

A Board of Directors Meeting was held on April 29, 2014 to consider ending the occupancy and membership rights of a member - in other words 'eviction'.

Here is the decision:

1.  Letter dated May 1, 2014 - "The Board of Directors have not decided to end your occupancy rights in the above unit on May 11, 2014 and have decided to end your membership in the co-operative on that date."

2.  Schedule E - Eviction Decision - "4.  The occupancy rights and the membership in the Co-operative of the members in the above unit are ended on May 11, 2014."

3. Schedule E - Further Decision - "A new Notice to Appear will be issued for Wednesday, May 14, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. where the Board of Directors will consider ending the membership and occupancy rights of the above member on Sunday, May 25, 2014.

Tacked on to Schedule E under the heading Behaviour is a new charge: 

You owe $526. of housing charge arrears to the Co-op as of March 31, 1014.

There is no such fictitious charge in the new Notice to Appear.

Instead, on Friday, May 2, 2014, the co-op's maintenance man, - at co-op expense - installed strategically placed front and rear security cameras on the unit next to the potential evictee's unit. The Property Manager forfeited her day off to oversee this operation and can now watch my neighbour and all of us 24 hrs. a day on her smart phone.

The completely incomprehensible eviction decisions and the security cameras are intimidation tactics - poisonous game playing at its worst.

THE CULL

On April 17, 2014, one day before Good Friday, a Notice to Appear was strategically placed in my neighbour's mailbox.  The Notice stated that she is to appear before the Board of Directors at a meeting to be held on Tuesday, April 29, 2014, wherein they will consider ending her membership.  Should the Board of Directors vote to evict the member, she will have to vacate her unit on May 11, 2014 - Ten (10) days later.  The member has been living in the co-op for twenty-four years!

The reason for her proposed eviction is that she now owes the co-op $25.00 for breaching By-law 26 - feeding wildlife animals.  She had an overturned green garbage pail on her front step landing, which had a chewed hole at the rim.  This was deemed by the Property Manager to be a feeder.  A small piece of wood was at the base of her deep basement window well.  This was to harbour animals the Property Manager declared and promptly took photos of the two offences.

By-law 26 states:

Enforcement

1.  For the first violation the Co-op will issue a written warning.

2.  For the second violation, the member will be issued a $25.00 fine.

3.  For the third and subsequent violation, the member will be issued a $50.00 (fine) and a notice to appear before the Board of Directors.

The member did not receive a $50.00 fine - she was immediately served with a Notice to Appear.

The letter stated that the member refused access to her unit by a maintenance man.  She and her family were not feeling well that day, so she asked if he could return the next day.  She waited for the maintenance man the next day, but he didn't show.  When questioned later in the week, the maintenance man told her that he was given instructions by the Property Manager not to go back to the unit.

The member was also accused of 'intimidating and harassing behaviour towards members, their family and guests in the co-op past and present' and 'intimidating and harassing behaviour towards the office staff''.  We have only one office staff, so that would be the Property Manager.  The members/family/guests is her next door neighbour, who promptly reports to the Property Manager replete with photos.

The Notice to Appear states:

You do not have to vacate your unit, but the Co-operative may obtain a Writ of Possession (eviction order) from a court after your membership and occupancy rights are ended.  If you do not vacate your unit, the Co-operative will also seek a court order that you pay its legal costs.

The member was given Ten (10) days to vacate because she purportedly owes $25.00 to the co-op.  If she were to owe nothing to the co-op, she would have Thirty (30) days to vacate.  It is not difficult to see how atrociously contrived this intended eviction is. 

By-law 26 was specifically put in place because the neighbour didn't like the woman feeding stray cats, birds or squirrels.  The By-law has now achieved its goal and to mark this special occasion, the Notice to Appear was joyfully delivered to the member just before the long Easter Weekend, a celebratory religious holiday for this member and her family.

This will be the sixth eviction recently attempted in our co-op.  The last one was such a success that the Board of Directors and the Property Manager are clearly zealous about cleansing our co-op.

Hope on the Horizon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz8njyhHZFY

LIAR-LIAR

Before the words were even out of her mouth about how the Board of Directors abused her at a meeting designed to evict her, the Property Manager belted out, 'It's a lie!'  Other Board members quickly piled on the abuse - LIAR!    The President of the co-op, who Chaired the meeting, also attested to the fact that what the member was saying didn't happen.  He hadn't attended the Board meeting, but said that he had read a 'transcript' of the Board minutes.  The meeting was electronically  recorded and of course, the expletives were conveniently deleted.  The woman crumpled into tears.  With her permission I will tell her story.

The member is vulnerable - a victim of domestic violence.  She is also on a disability pension and is coping as best she can given her circumstances.  She was late on several occasions in getting her subsidy renewal application in.  To further complicate matters the Property Manager insisted that her son apply for OW and things unravelled from there.  The member was never late paying her housing charges because it was paid directly by ODSP.   

In December she received a letter from the Property Manager saying that she was overhoused - that she would have to downsize to a 2-bedroom unit.  She submitted two letters from an orthopedic surgeon that she had had surgery, needed a year to recover and also needed a downstairs washroom.  Up to that time no arrears were mentioned.  If so, the co-op would not have consented to downsize her.

The Property Manager refused to acknowledge her medical letters and out of the blue, she received a notification that the co-op had retracted her subsidy retroactively to May, 2013 and that she was now $2,400. in arrears.  The reason:  Incomplete subsidy information.  And the piling on began.  There was extensive damage to her unit - holes in walls:  FIX THE WALLS in a very short time span - the co-op would re-enter the unit to assess.

A Notice of Hearing was sent to the member - attend a Board Meeting where a decision to evict her would be considered.  The member attended the Board meeting, along with a lawyer from a community legal aid centre.  At the Board meeting she was berated - she was told that she had brought the abuse on herself, that her physical disability wasn't a disability at all - she could walk down stairs no problem, just like another Board member.  The lawyer didn't defend her, just quickly touched her not to respond.  The member left the meeting in tears.

The very next day she received the Board's decision in her mailbox - evicted -  to leave her unit in a couple of days.  She appealed the decision and set about to tell her story at the Special Meeting last night.  She had no lawyer representing her - I was her support person.  The co-op's lawyer was there to fortify the Property Manager.  No help was needed in that regard, so he didn't say a word for the entire meeting.  The sum of $1,500. was budgeted for legal fees for 2013-14.  The reason being is that the member being evicted will be charged for his services.

A member sitting next to me wanted the Property Manager voted out of the meeting.  The Chair asked how this would be possible.  He missed the point.  The Property Manager is known to roll her eyes, smile sardonically when challenged and many members don't even want to be in her presence.

The member up for eviction in a very quiet voice, trembling and in tears continued reading her notes to the membership.  TIMES UP! Now it was the Property's Manager's turn.

For over one hour she went on and on and on.  In a dreary monotone, she read every date of every email to the member and vice versa. She had control of members.  They were stuffed into this very small meeting room and for all intents and purposes just wanted her to stop droning on.

I then spoke, saying that I had helped the member through this ordeal.  I stated that CMHC deferred overhousing to co-op by-laws, that our by-laws allowed for the use of discretion in deciding whether to postpone a move, or not move a member at all.  That the co-op had a Domestic Violence By-law and instead of showing empathy and compassion to the member who had suffered domestic violence, that they were abusing her even more. 

I stated that the member received approximately $1,000. in disability benefits, that she now had to pay full fee for a unit because her subsidy was taken away, and to completely annihilate the member, the Property Manager had imposed a Performance Agreement on her to repay $600. per month for 4 months until her 'concocted' debt to the co-op was paid off.  I stated that it was preposterous to even think that the member would sign such an agreement - it was designed specifically to entrap her.  

I then read out the Performance Agreement in our by-laws which was flexible according to the financial means of the member being asked to sign.  This and other statements I made incensed the Property Manager - she went to the office to get the by-laws to prove me wrong.  She stated that it was a by-law or policy that anyone owing arrears over $2,000. would have to repay it in 120 days.  I said that's ridiculous - that my husband and I couldn't even do it - how could someone on ODSP or OW pay that amount of money.  A long-standing member spoke up saying that the Performance Agreement I had read out was the one which had been used in our co-op since its inception.  How convenient that the member being evicted owed $2,000.  

A member who attended the meeting spoke empathetically about victims of violence - that the trauma affects one's very being and coping skills for a very long time.  Members finally came alive and gave her a subdued round of applause.  

My husband then spoke up and began his sentence with, 'In the 24 years we've been living here, the co-op has been ...  He was then drowned out by a very coarse voice yelling back at him. Someone yelled out, 'Call the question!'  And with that it was time for the vote.

Strips of paper had not yet been prepared for the vote.  Some were roughly ripped into such thin strips, you could curl them up and flick them in the air.  During the break one woman who was actually evicted and miraculously is still here, said that she couldn't vote, because her unit number was not listed anymore on the sign in sheet. H-m-m-m.

The vote was tallied - 26 for eviction, 21 against.  The Property Manager had won another battle.  Victory was palpable in the air - subsidized, well housed Board members rejoiced at having crushed their opponent - a vulnerable woman completely at their mercy.

I walked over to my friend and told her how proud I was of her for holding up under such stress.  Other members felt the same way and we held each other up.  Tomorrow is a brighter day for my friend and her dignity will be upheld.

In closing I would like to say that several Board members have had abusive relationships and have had damage to their units as a consequence.  In general there are many units occupied by members in a gross state of disrepair, so why focus in on this member.  Why hound her to distraction - letters arrived in her mailbox anytime of day or night, the Property Manager entered her unit on very short notice - alone. Why humiliate her as though she didn't even exist.  It certainly was not about good corporate governance.  It was out and out bullying.
        

THE 3 R'S

We received a Tax Receipt letter dated February 22, 2014 from our Property Manager for our housing charges paid in 2013.  As the calculations didn't appear to be accurate, I did the calculation.  It turned out that the amount stated in the letter pertained to the housing charge we paid in 2010.  

The co-op submitted an incorrect housing charge calculation pertaining to 2010 in our Human Rights case.  The document was not signed or dated and I stated at that time that the document had been fabricated for the purpose of our Human Rights case.  I, therefore, submitted the correct calculation, along with a signed and dated document from the co-op substantiating same.  My calculation was re-used in the letter we just received for the year 2013.  

I wrote the Board of Directors indicating my concerns with the integrity and trustworthiness of our Property Manager as she had signed the letter.  Shortly thereafter I received quite a threatening email  from our Property Manager.  She claimed that this was an error on the part of the bookkeeper and warned me that this was the final time that she was going to ask me to cease and desist from talking about her.

Firstly, let me say that it is very difficult to bypass the Property Manager because she "manages" everything in the co-op.  If you fail to fill out one line in the multitude of documents one is required to fill out, the document will be dropped back into your mailbox any time of day or night.  Members are not allowed to talk to contractors.  In many instances if you have a concern which you would like to refer to the Board of Directors, you will receive an email back that she, the Property Manager, has been given the ultimate authority to deal with this and that.

The bookkeeping company has been lauded for their wonderful detailed work and has just been re-hired by our co-op.  The bookkeepers are the fall-back people should a discrepancy be challenged by a member.  However, when it comes to thousands of dollars in chargebacks, or arrears, our Property Manager is never wrong.  You pay up or you get evicted.  If you are evicted and wish to dispute the facts, the ex-member can hire a lawyer.  The Property Manager is fully protected by the co-op's lawyer, for which the evicted member is then charged.  And for further protection the Property Manager will take out a No Trespassing Order.

The Property Manager is not overseen by the Board of Directors.  She is given full control of everything, including them.

Receipts, Reprimands, Retaliation - works everytime!