Case Studies, Pendrell Place: Litigation - Appointment of an Administrator

The following transcript records the decision by the Court to order the appointment of an Administrator for Pendrell Place. This process was originally initiated by Mr. Oldaker on December 28, 2000 when, as per paragraph 57 of his October 3, 2005 Affidavit, he filed Petition L003498 in the Supreme Court.
However, the transcript of June 19, 2001 leaves the impression that it was a group of owners other than Mr. Oldaker who is applying for the appointment of the administrator:
MR. WILLIAMS: And My Lord, this is a petition asking for a number of different remedies and declarations, but for the purposes of being before Your Lordship, the ten owners and a number of owners within the Strata Corporation, as well as direction from the owners to the Council last night wish the appointment of an administrator

As Mr. Oldaker's October 3, 2005 Affidavit indicates (paragraphs 16 through 56) he had experienced nothing but opposition from other owners in trying to have the issues with his suite addressed, hence his desire to have an Administrator appointed, as expressed in his December 28, 2000 petition.

19JUN2001 L003498 Oldaker v Strata Plan.doc

The process of appointing an administrator, as started by Mr. Oldaker in December of 2000 and so ordered by the Court on June 19, 2001, took an interesting turn on August 8, 2001. At that time, Mr. Patrick Williams filed a new petition (L012185) on behalf of Gregory Ball, Daphne Bramham, Max Campos, Barbara Coleman, George Fetherling, Ilpo Halva, Beverly Lewis, Martin Lewis and Gordon Owens. Despite being a new petition, this action did not seek anything other than the appointment of an administrator, which had already been ordered by the Court on June 19, 2001. Both Mr. Williams and Mr. (Richard) Hamilton were still trying to settle that order and agree on who the administrator should be and what the terms of reference would be:

MR. HAMILTON: Suffice to say again, that we have been working, Mr. Williams and I, trying to come to terms with what the order should say.
THE COURT: So you haven't settled the order?
MR. HAMILTON:We haven't settled the order.
MR.HAMILTON: Now, instead of going back in that proceeding, as I submit he ought to have, he has started a brand new proceeding seeking the same order that you've already made, the appointment of an administrator.The petition herein that I received by fax in part yesterday afternoon and is before the Court today, asks for exactly what we agreed to and Your Lordship ordered on June the 19th, the appointment under the Act of an administrator. And I say that it's inappropriate, the matter -- for him to seek today on his new petition, his clients' new petition, the appointment of an administrator.

It appears as if the group of owners named in the new petition were attempting to hijack the appointment of an administrator for Pendrell Place. If the petitioners had been successful they would have, in effect, been in control of deciding the name of and the terms of reference for the administrator, as so noted by Mr. Richard Hamilton:

MR. HAMILTON: ...this is a completely, in my submission, inappropriate back door way of trying to get, on behalf of these individual vested interests, these owners, their choice of the administrator.

The Court agreed with Mr. Hamilton's submission and questioned Mr. Williams throughout the hearing as to the purpose and appropriateness of the new petition:

MR. WILLIAMS: So when I sent the order over to my friend indicating Garth Cambrey, one of the two, the response was, oh, I have received my -- I've received different instructions, my clients aren't prepared to accept either one of the administrators. So I was in the unfortunate situation where as far as I was concerned before Your Lordship, the idea was one of the two named administrators in the Gordon Owens' affidavit --

THE COURT: I understand that, but why didn't you come back in that action, either to settle the order or to ask the Court to make an ancillary order appointing a particular person as administrator? Why did you start a new action --

MR. WILLIAMS: Because --

THE COURT: -- and apparently seek to come here ex parte?

MR. WILLIAMS: The main reason -- well, a couple of reasons, My Lord. Number one is the urgency of the matter. Number two is the fact there was actually a small claims hearing this morning at 10:45. But most importantly, this Strata Corporation is in such a mess that I was -- it was my belief that what I will call a clean petition would be best for a Court to deal with.

THE COURT: But you're asking the Court to make an order it's already made and you're not giving notice to the interested party to whom you would have had to give notice if you'd acted in the other action.

It was Mr. Oldaker's position in his petition of December 2000 that an administrator was required for Pendrell Place precisely because the Strata Corporation was in such a mess. Mr. Williams was essentially presenting the very same argument and reasons in the August 8, 2001 petition for the necessity of an Administrator that had already been covered by Mr. Oldaker in his December 2000 petition and dealt with in the June 19, 2001 hearing.

The Court dismissed Mr. Williams' petition, calling the action "vexatious" and "inappropriate". The full transcript may be accessed as follows:

8AUG2001 L01285 Ball et al v Owners.doc

It was on October 26, 2001 that an administrator was finally named (Mr. Garth Cambrey) and the terms of reference agreed upon. The full transcript of that decision may be accessed as follows:

260CT2001 L003498 STROMBERG-STEIN Oldaker v The Owners.doc

This post contains a brief discussion of Mr. Cambrey's time as administrator for Pendrell Place, as well as providing examples of other strata complexes as they went through the process of having an administrator appointed.

Case Studies, Pendrell Place: Lynne Gonzalez comments on misleading allegations and conflicts of interest

In an email dated June 11, 2001 addressed to Chris Monk, Lynne Gonzalez outlines a copy of a letter she wrote to all the owners discussing the misleading allegations brought forward in a letter signed by a group of eight other owners. She also discusses the conflict of interest issues surrounding this group of owners.

[Note: an excerpt of the letter signed by Barbara Coleman et al, referred to by Lynne Gonzalez, may be found here.]


re: June 18th Meeting Agenda Items and letter signed by Barbara Coleman, Beverly and Martin Lewis, Daphne Bramham, Gordon Owens, Ilpo Halva, Susan Erdmann, and Max Campos.

Each of the above people has a "conflict of interest" in any vote or statement regarding financial matters relating to Owners’ Strata VR1008 .

Gordon Owens, as chairman of our current Strata Council, while acting as representative of all owners in the position of Chairman, has acted, at the same time, in his own interests, as a realtor, selling Unit #501 belonging to Susan Erdmann, without disclosing to the prospective buyers, either the pending lawsuits which will have a financial impact on the new owner, or the effect of the water ingress in suite #504. It is an assumption that Susan Erdmann has not taken the initiative, either, to disclose to her prospective buyers the above facts.

Barbara Coleman, Daphne Bramham and Ilpo Halva have each received benefits of new decks/patios (in some cases, done in duplicate) while sitting on the council that approved these improvements and for extremely high figures, illegaly using Contingency Reserve Funds without the consent of all the owners.

Maximo Campos has sat on numerous councils and not "blown the whistle", as well as benefitting directly from a janitorial contract @ $7200.00 per annum, for over five years. Daphne Bramham, has a particular "conflict of interest" , because she is also acting as our financial representative.

I would like to point out that, while we are an elected council of seven people, Gordon Owens, our chairman, Daphne Bramham, our Treasurer, Max Campos, and Barbara Coleman, who are four of the people that signed the June 7th, 2001 letter, are precisely the people who boycotted, a mutually agreed upon, designated meeting on April 30th and, not only once, but again boycotted a meeting called with a requisite week’s notice by Mrs. Gonzalez Doupe for May 10th, 2001. It is both false and manipulative to state that "attempts at meetings have been boycotted by one or more council members on a number of occasion resulting in no quorum", when it is precisely this group that has done so.

Chris Monk, Tim Dudra and I, who are three elected members of your 2001 Council have repeatedly asked for financial statements from Ascent Management, Gordon Owens, our Chairman and our Treasurer, Daphne Bramham, for the past fiscal year, in order to assess and eventually approve a new budget. It is very distressing to be at the receiving end of false accusations, when we have been the ones to initiate the search for truth and accountability. No invoices or statements of disbursements have been produced for the past fiscal year, or the two preceding years, for that matter, and we now face a $24,278.66 deficit with an additional levy for $40,000 without producing any invoices. Something is indeed adrift. How can any of us approve a new budget or levy without seeing any breakdown or details of financial disbursement?

Since the people who signed the letter dated June 7, 2001, have refused to show us these statements, contravening our By-laws, and both the Condominium and Strata Corporation Act, we would like to ask why they are so vehemently against doing so.

Please note that the above statements are factual and can be substantiated with invoices and documents from both VanCap and Ascent Management, as well as personal correspondence between Marty Lewis, Chairman of Council 2000-2001 and Michael Roach, as well as minutes from the Strata Council.

Also, in accordance with our By-laws, no council member can be removed without "just cause". A conflict of interest and boycotting of two scheduled meeting (see attached minutes) seem to fall within this category.


Lynne Doupe Gonzalez

Case Studies, Pendrell Place: Sick and tired of Oldaker? Pendrell Place not a 'leaky condo'

On or about June 07, 2001, an influential group of Pendrell Place owners signed and distributed a document which contained the following statements:


Are you sick and tired of reading and hearing the thoughts of Oldaker and his friends? Alright, we'll try to be brief. This is from the group of owners who have demanded the special general meeting on June 18th. We are people who live in the building and have been involved in the strata council for the last few years. We are the people who made sure the building was repaired, made water tight and painted. We believe that this building is a good investment. It is reinforced concrete and not a "leaky condo". The location is perfect, between the bustle of Denman street and the beauty and serenity of Stanley Park. VR 1008 is a great place to live and a great long-term investment. We know that the only way to keep it solid and beautiful is to maintain it as you would your home. And by doing it together we save money. This is why the June 18th meeting has been called; we are attempting to save our building. And yours!



We are currently in a very vulnerable situation: not collecting sufficient revenue to meet our costs, no longer having a management company to handle financials, repairs and maintenance, and emergency call outs.



Thank you for your interest. We hope to see you at the Special General Meeting on June 18th [2001].





Barbara Coleman, #103
(who continues as a resident owner);

Martin Lewis, #104
(who continues as an owner; nonresident since 2002);

B. [Beverly] Lewis, #104
(who continues as an owner; nonresident since 2002);

Maximo Campos, #301
(who continues as a resident owner);

Daphne Bramham #302
(who sold in mid-August 2001 to Katernchuk);

Gregory Ball, #401
(who continues as a resident owner);

Susan Erdmann, #501
(who sold June 2001 to Mason & Dixon);

Gordon Owens #503
(who continues as an owner; nonresident since September 2001).

[Note: the allegations contained in this letter were subsequently challenged in a June 11, 2001 letter from Lynne Gonzalez, an owner and member of the Strata Council at that time.]