Evicted because baby was born

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby ORWELL » Jul 31st, 2019, 1:00 pm

why don't you try going to CHOA first https://www.choa.bc.ca/

and quote the article that supports running to the "CRT" that was violated, and also contact the strata president to find out where the negligence truly lies as I'm sure there another version of this before it got this large.

as my point is the story is written against the management company as being heartless - this story stinks of rotten fish

common_sense_guy likes this post.
ORWELL
 
Posts: 29
Likes: 3 posts
Liked in: 9 posts
Joined: Nov 27th, 2011, 6:09 pm

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby the truth » Jul 31st, 2019, 1:17 pm

maybe she should do what everyone else is doing these days when things do not go there way, take it to the http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/
"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." -George Orwell
User avatar
the truth
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 18324
Likes: 13546 posts
Liked in: 7688 posts
Joined: May 16th, 2007, 9:24 pm
Location: kelowna

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby soupy » Jul 31st, 2019, 1:45 pm

Likely a complete second side to this story that could also have a good "click-bait" title given to it for views.
soupy
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 829
Likes: 1611 posts
Liked in: 784 posts
Joined: May 14th, 2006, 10:31 pm

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby Poindexter » Jul 31st, 2019, 1:56 pm

Rules are rules but perhaps they should change their name from Tiffany to Contraception Gardens, at least then there will be no more confusion. :D
User avatar
Poindexter
Guru
 
Posts: 6157
Likes: 4206 posts
Liked in: 4750 posts
Joined: May 26th, 2008, 11:44 am

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby LANDM » Jul 31st, 2019, 3:11 pm

JagXKR wrote:
Bsuds wrote:A renter can attend the meeting but cannot discuss anything without approval as well as they cannot vote without a proxy.


Unless stated in a strata's bylaws a renter cannot vote, or vote via proxy. Proxy votes are only from owners that cannot attend the meeting. The owner can vote for the renter's wishes but that is clearly between the owner and the renter.
The owner's proxy can be handed in at any meeting but I do believe that only another owner can submit the proxy. I've never run into that scenario so have no real knowledge but it would seem a petty thing not to allow the renter to hand in the proxy.


The B.C. Strata act actually does not say the above. It does say:

Voters
54 (1) The following persons may vote at an annual or special general meeting:
(a) an owner, unless a tenant or mortgagee has the right to vote under paragraph (b) or (c);
(b) a tenant who has been assigned a landlord's right to vote under section 147 or 148, unless a mortgagee has the right to vote under paragraph (c);
(c) a mortgagee of a strata lot, but only in respect of insurance, maintenance, finance or other matters affecting the security for the mortgage and only if
(i) the mortgage gives the mortgagee the right to vote, and
(ii) at least 3 days before the meeting the mortgagee has given to the strata corporation, the owner and the tenant referred to in paragraph (b), if any, written notice of the mortgagee's intention to vote.
(2) Despite subsection (1) and any assignment or other disposition of a right to vote to a mortgagee of a strata lot,
(a) the mortgagee may not vote on a winding-up resolution, and
(b) the owner of the strata lot may vote on the winding-up resolution unless a tenant has the right to vote under subsection (1) (b).
Special voters
55 (1) If a person who may vote under section 54 is under 16 years of age, the person's right to vote may be exercised only by the person's parent or guardian.
(2) If a person who may vote under section 54 lacks the capacity to make a decision for a reason other than being under 16 years of age, the person's right to vote may be exercised only by someone who is legally authorized to act for the person with respect to the strata lot.
Proxies
56 (1) A person who may vote under section 54 or 55 may vote in person or by proxy.
(2) A document appointing a proxy
(a) must be in writing and be signed by the person appointing the proxy,
(b) may be either general or for a specific meeting or a specific resolution, and
(c) may be revoked at any time.
(3) The following persons may be proxies:
(a) only if permitted by regulation and subject to prescribed restrictions, an employee of the strata corporation;
(b) only if permitted by regulation and subject to prescribed restrictions, a person who provides strata management services to the strata corporation;
(c) subject to the regulations, any other person.
(4) A proxy stands in the place of the person appointing the proxy, and can do anything that person can do, including vote, propose and second motions and participate in the discussion, unless limited in the appointment document.
Shared vote
57 (1) If 2 or more persons share one vote with respect to a strata lot, only one of them may vote on any given matter.
(2) If the chair is advised before or during a vote that the 2 or more persons who share the one vote disagree on how their vote should be cast on a matter, the chair must not count their vote in respect of that matter.
Court appointed voter
58 (1) If there is no person to vote in respect of a strata lot, an owner, the strata corporation or an interested person may apply to the Supreme Court for an order under subsection (2).
(2) On application under subsection (1), the court may make an order declaring that there is no person to vote in respect of the strata lot, and appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee or any other person to vote in respect of the strata lot.
(3) If the application concerns a matter that requires an 80% vote or unanimous vote and the court is satisfied that there is no person to vote in respect of a strata lot, the court must make an order under subsection (2).
(4) The court may make any order it considers advisable, including an order respecting the payment of fees, to give effect to an appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee or other person.
(5) The court may vary an order made under this section.

And
Assignment of powers and duties to tenant
147 (1) A landlord may assign to a tenant some or all of the powers and duties of the landlord that arise under this Act, the bylaws or the rules, but may not assign to a tenant the landlord's responsibility under section 131 for fines or the costs of remedying a contravention of the bylaws or rules.
(2) The assignment is not effective until the landlord gives the strata corporation a written notice stating all of the following:
(a) the name of the tenant to whom the assignment is made;
(b) the powers and duties that have been assigned;
(c) the time period during which the assignment is effective.
LANDM
Guru
 
Posts: 7662
Likes: 2381 posts
Liked in: 4402 posts
Joined: Sep 18th, 2009, 11:58 am

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby Lerfy » Jul 31st, 2019, 5:46 pm

I think people are missing the point. It isnt about whether she was able to vote. It is about what she did to stay informed. Strata are required to hold AGMs or SGMs to change bylaws... did she attend? Stratas are required to post minutes of those meetings... did she read them? Stratas change their bylaws all the time and this is a change that is permitted by the Strata Property Act and the Human Rights Code. There are plenty of ways to stay informed and this is why it is important to do so.

mexi cali likes this post.
User avatar
Lerfy
Fledgling
 
Posts: 215
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 128 posts
Joined: Aug 18th, 2007, 8:38 pm

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby mexi cali » Jul 31st, 2019, 5:53 pm

Thanks Lerf. You pretty much covered it. It may seem to suck on the surface but the rules are there for all. They can be changed by process and the newly adopted rules are made available to all.

I feel for her but she sounds like everybody else who believes they have been treated unfairly. No way she didn't have access to the new rules. No way that even if she hadn't seen them in print that she wouldn't have heard someone talking about it in passing.

We assumed that if they took our checks, that they had decided to let them stay. Who wouldn't want to have that in writing.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
User avatar
mexi cali
Guru
 
Posts: 6167
Likes: 2999 posts
Liked in: 4352 posts
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 2:48 pm

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby 65deluxe » Aug 1st, 2019, 12:37 pm

JLives wrote:The rules are the problem. People first. Change the rules and stop putting families on the street. We can do better than this!


Yeah, because no rules would be so much better. Funny, people complain of no housing in Penticton, and no quality jobs. Well do what people have been doing for years, go where they are.
65deluxe
 
Posts: 8
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 3 posts
Joined: Feb 11th, 2014, 5:31 pm

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby Even Steven » Aug 1st, 2019, 1:08 pm

Chances are she was told, but she is hoping to weasel herself into staying by being grandfathered.

Because let's say she was told about it two years ago. Would she terminate her pregnancy because of it? Heck no and neither should she. Rules are the rules, so she would be looking to move anyway.

Don't see a problem.

soupy likes this post.
Even Steven
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3227
Likes: 216 posts
Liked in: 2427 posts
Joined: Mar 24th, 2015, 7:20 pm

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby fluffy » Aug 4th, 2019, 5:10 am

I’m not insensitive to this woman’s plight, rent is getting crazier everywhere and Penticton is no different, but I can’t help but think of the rest of the people in the complex, you know, the majority who voted for the 19+ restriction? Are we to cast aside democratic process every time someone comes up with a sob story that plays well to the media?
Okey dokey doggie daddy.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 19409
Likes: 347 posts
Liked in: 4392 posts
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm
Location: Ogo

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby dolanduck » Aug 4th, 2019, 7:12 am

Former resident (owner) and attendee of the SGM here.

While the results of that SGM were to vote the complex 19+, it was voted that way because two individuals, not one, own the majority of the 120ish units in the complex, and wanted it to be 19+. Nearly all other owners / attendees voted against the change. Those two individuals are also the strata president and vice president. Essentially two people who don't live in Penticton dictating the strata.

As far as the not getting notice goes, as an owner it is next to impossible to not receive any notice, but if her landlord neglected to pass it along (maybe saw it as a non-issue since they had no kids at the time), it wouldn't surprise me to know that they weren't informed.

Bsuds likes this post.
dolanduck
 
Posts: 3
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Jul 6th, 2016, 10:40 pm

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby fluffy » Aug 4th, 2019, 9:27 am

That’s the way the law works? One vote per unit even if one owner owns multiple units? Doesn’t that kind of fly in the face of the democratic process I mentioned above?

Ownership should have its privileges, I can agree with that to a point, but at this complex there are apparently two owners dictating policy to all the rest, and that doesn’t feel quite right.
Okey dokey doggie daddy.

Piecemaker likes this post.
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 19409
Likes: 347 posts
Liked in: 4392 posts
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm
Location: Ogo

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby twobits » Aug 5th, 2019, 4:32 pm

fluffy wrote:That’s the way the law works? One vote per unit even if one owner owns multiple units? Doesn’t that kind of fly in the face of the democratic process I mentioned above?

Ownership should have its privileges, I can agree with that to a point, but at this complex there are apparently two owners dictating policy to all the rest, and that doesn’t feel quite right.


You have just pointed out one of the fundamental flaws in the BC Strata/Condo Act. While outwardly, democracy is the intention, it hardly democratic when a few can dictate to many.
In the case of Tiffany Gardens.....I believe it is actually 3 owners living in the Lower Mainland......that collectively own somewhere around 68 of 120 units. This has been the case since the property was built decades ago. It was investors who pooled capital to build the comlex and sold only enough of them to get most or all of their investment back and still hold the iron hammer. And good for them in their entrepreneurship and investment savvy however innocents should not be caught in this scenario.
If nothing else, the Act should include that a mandatory warning for the prospective purchasers of any Strata Property that this kind of block vote control exists. As it is, it is little more than a fiefdom of elite dictating land use rights that is reminiscent of British Lordships.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.

fluffy likes this post.
twobits
Guru
 
Posts: 7223
Likes: 1092 posts
Liked in: 3853 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am
Location: GPS says Dead Elbow Utah. Think I'm lost

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby twobits » Aug 6th, 2019, 4:11 pm

It get's even worse than that really. Here is a copy/paste from the Feb 20, 2019 AGM......

Item 12) - Election of Council: the current council stood for re election. Without any other nominations arising from the floor and with no dissenting votes, the council was elected by acclimation. The strata council for the 2019 term is therefore, Ray Saadien; Tom Taylor and Olga Wiskel.

Notice that there are only 3 Strata Council members for a comlex this large. How is that possible? Cuz that is the minimum the Provincial Act requires and when three people hold the majority of votes, they can control the makeup of the Strata Council. This is so wrong it borders on Criminal. And if not that bar, a human rights violation that legislation is allowing.
IMO, this is very serious. How can 3 people retroactively dictate that a current owner or Tenant of private property must vacate their home if they should choose to have a child. It stuns me that this kind of rule or bylaw is permissible in this Province or Country.
Refugee's cross the border daily with multiple children in tow and we look after them with food, housing, and medical care.
If you live in Tiffany Gardens in Penticton and have a baby.......the law says they can legally make you sell your home and leave the property or move if you were a renter. Even an accidental pregnancy would force you to sell your home and move or choose to abort the baby. That is just F'ed up IMHO.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.

Bsuds likes this post.
twobits
Guru
 
Posts: 7223
Likes: 1092 posts
Liked in: 3853 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am
Location: GPS says Dead Elbow Utah. Think I'm lost

Re: Evicted because baby was born

Postby fluffy » Aug 7th, 2019, 5:05 am

I have to wonder how things would be if things like this were under control of the actual residents? An adult oriented complex has a markedly different “personality” than a family friendly one of course, but you’re right twobits, this crosses a line somewhere but it is a blurry one when you start looking at things like rights of ownership. I don’t like the spectre of “money is power” that hangs over this issue. Too much control in the hands of too few.
Okey dokey doggie daddy.
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 19409
Likes: 347 posts
Liked in: 4392 posts
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm
Location: Ogo

PreviousNext

Return to South Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests