Apps for That

In 2012 a member was evicted for not paying any housing charge for Seventeen (17) months. During that time the member was given subsidies twice to clear thousands of dollars in arrears.  The non-payment of rent (housing charge) continued unabated until it was eventually brought to the members' attention by way of eviction. How could this have happened?  Easy - friends in high places.

In our Human Rights case, despite my husband's poor health, the co-op stated that they had to move us to Phase II of the co-op because we were subsidized creating undue hardship for Phase 1. The above-mentioned member lived rent free for months on end in the same Phase of the co-op as us.To the Human Rights Tribunal our housing transfer was viewed as a legitimate non-profit housing concern - to the power elite in the co-op, the magical words 'non-profit' worked sublimely - again!

The Reasoning

In 2013 the co-op applied to the Superior Court for an eviction order against a member for arrears of approximately $800. This figure is comprised of fines levied by the co-op against the Defendant. The Judge upon reaching his decision to evict the member stated that the member was in "violation of a by-law regulating the number of people in the unit". This information was passed on to him by the co-op's lawyer, who in turn received it from the co-op's Property Manager. The reality of this situation is that it was the co-op which housed the family in this unit when they arrived two years earlier.

The member signed a Performance Agreement with the Board of Directors stating that they could stay if they paid their arrears 'immediately'. Having signed the entrapment agreement, the co-op enforced the eviction order, because the arrears were not paid 'immediately' the next day - or earlier. The Judge declared all of this to be "reasonable" and granted the Eviction Order with costs against the Defendant.

The unit subsequently sat vacant for several years.  Noncollectable legal fees, plus vacancy losses would have been in the order of $50,000.

The co-op is now using the same lawyer to sue me. 

THEN & NOW

The wide open blue skies, the fruit laden trees which line the sidewalks, the free roaming rabbits on the greenways, parents and children on bikes riding together, along with people strolling and jogging on the pathways, all create a deja vu feeling in me of peacefulness - an awakening of a time before. A time before 'co-op'.

Gigantic willow trees, budding chestnut trees, the abundance of apple trees and even insects intrigue me. Things just gently flow together.

Whether sitting on a bench or strolling on the pathways, there's often a nod of civility towards one other.

And then one day there was a knock at our door.

A Question of Honour

An All Members Meeting was held to oust a Board member. The member, I suppose, had simply asked too many probing questions, as the charges outlined were preposterous.  When it came time to vote on the matter, numerous children on instructions from their parent(s), raised their hands in unison to remove the Director. 

Long standing members were astonished at what they witnessed, but were assured by one parent (ex-preferred Board member) that all the kids were Sixteen (16) years old and indignantly asked whether the members were questioning his honour. 

The By-laws state that Sixteen (16) year olds can become members and I guess that is what they were doing when they were lining up at the office the day after the meeting.

In the decades I lived in the co-op, I never knew of one family whose kids became members.

It is not a Question of Honour - it is a Question of Ethics!

When the Co-op Calls

A Community Education Meeting was held on Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 4:00 p.m.  It wasn't a formal meeting - it was formulated by the co-op's Property Manager and cohorts.  The notice stated:

What to Expect:

• Video Presentation

          Exposing your Neighbours   Interesting Footage

• How to promote Positive Behaviour
• How to deal with Illegal Activity
• How does this negatively affect the operations of your Co-op and you?
• What should the Members do next?

We will provide refreshments and light snacks.

Everyone should participate.  You may be surprised at the outcome.

*****

The Property Manager presided over this Sunday afternoon meeting.  No video footage was shown, nor any of the above agenda items discussed.  The cohorts of the Property Manager each praised the other for their complete devotion to the co-op and members were encouraged to 'love, love, love' one another.  A dedicated member was on hand to translate these self-praising spiels into Arabic for many meeting attendees.

This gathering proved to be an excellent indoctrination ceremony for upcoming meetings.

Buying Time

In late April, 2015 a Petition to remove the co-op's property management company was signed by many members and deposited with the Board of Directors.  The reasons for the Resolution was concern about the Property Manager's interactions with members, the methods being employed, as well as a dubious hiring process.

On May 25, 2015 a letter from the co-op's lawyer was distributed to all members stating that the Board of Directors voted not to "act on it".  An excerpt of the letter is as follows:

Had the directors passed a resolution to terminate the contract with XXX, that would have exposed [the co-op] and its directors to a claim for damages for breach of contract.  In my view, such a resolution is not therefore one that, in the words of the governing legislation, "may properly be passed" by directors . . .  Furthermore, the petition contained erroneous statements about the Co-op's by-laws.

The Board of Directors called a Special Meeting on Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 6:15 p.m. - off premises.  The Agenda did not state the purpose of the meeting.  There was barely a quorum at the meeting and the resolution was not passed.

 The Co-operative Corporations Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.35, s. 70. states:

 (8) Where a by-law or resolution in respect of which a meeting of directors is requisitioned under this section is not passed or confirmed at a meeting of the members, no requisition for a meeting of directors in respect of a similar by-law or resolution shall be made for a period of at least two years. 

There is strong contention in the co-op that this whole process was rigged top down from beginning to end to ensure that the property management company remains firmly in place for years to come.

Collusion at its best!

Ex-Member Here!

After twenty-five years of living in the co-op I most talk about, we made the decision to move. The long moving process didn't seem quite real as my ties to the community were very strong and at this stage in my life, I wanted things to remain the same. Roots, I guess.

I devised ways in my mind to find a quick route back to the co-op - buses routes were too convoluted. If only I could walk diagonally to the co-op, I could be there in less than one half hour. But that would have meant walking through a swamp and trespassing on a wide expanse of railway tracks. Skateboards, roller blades and a spiffy two-seater wheelchair scooter crossed my mind, but I don't use a chair and the vision of me being the driver, with my husband in tow was too comically surrealistic for my kids. Oh well, I'm adjusting to my new locale.

There are tons of greenspaces where we live - multi-use nature paths everywhere and a connecting park every second block.There seems to be more social housing complexes in this community, but they're practically unnoticeable, as they are constructed in mostly the same manner as the private homes and just about as well maintained. Many of them back on to the beautifully landscaped multi-use walkways, extending their back yards to accommodate their own play structures. Having strolled through these complexes on our recent walks, reflecting back in time, we would have chosen to live in one of them, instead of half a lifetime living in the co-op and for reasons which I will elaborate on in future blog posts.

I may have departed the co-op, but I have not yet escaped.