Vancouver, Pendrell Place: Realtors Burnham and Barker provided false information; requested to provide full disclosure regarding sale of 202 1819 Pendrell St.

* Leaks, Rot, Mould and Fraud *


March 19, 2008


Dick Burnham and

Lorne Barker

Royal Pacific Realty

Vancouver, BC


Dear Dick and Lorne,


Re:    Your Listing For Sale at Pendrell Place

202 1819 Pendrell Street


You will remember my recent phone call in which I requested that you provide full disclosure to potential purchasers of condominiums in Pendrell Place.


Lorne said that you were both “professional realtors” and “of course full disclosure would be provided”.


You have provided blatantly false and misleading information on your website which states:


  • $499,000
  • Property Address 202 1819 Pendrell Street, Pendrell Place, Vancouver, BC, V6G 1T3, Canada
  • Type Apartment
  • Style strata titled
  • Garage 1 car
  • Year Built 1981
  • Est. Property Tax $1263.43
  • Square Feet 855
  • Bedrooms 2
  • Bathroom 1 full
  • School District Vancouver

West End Address

202 1819 Pendrell Street, Pendrell Place, Vancouver, BC, V6G 1T3, Canada


We are proud to present this rare 'west of Denman' property. It's just 1/2 block to popular English Bay beach and the seawall walk to Stanley Park. This south facing two bedroom suite is located in a fine concrete building that has been totally rainscreened in recent years, as well as new windows and a newer roof. This bright suite has a large deck that is ideal for relaxing and enjoying your favourite book or impressing your guests at an intimate barbeque. The layout of the apartment is unique: the livingroom, dining area and kitchen have been redesigned as an'open' concept which allows for the maximum use of space,and depicts a truly West Coast lifestyle. Add to this the fact that the building is just two blocks to world famous Stanley Park and just steps to all the shops and restaurants along Denman, Robson and Davie Streets, and you have your own private oasis. Pets and rentals are welcome. We're having an OPEN HOUSE this Friday, Mar. 14th, from 10 a.m. to noon. Come by and see this beauty for may just be your dream home.


insuite laundry, fridge, stove with a separate cooktop, dishwasher, window coverings. Pets and rentals are welcome, and its just s stroll to the beach and shopping.


Elevator, south facing deck.


Pendrell Place has not been “totally rainscreened in recent years”.

One of the condominiums in the building has been uninhabitable for eight years because of leaks rot and mould caused by the failure of the building envelope.  See the CTV W5 program From Haven to Hell .

Expensive building envelope work recommended by Levelton Engineering has not been done.


There is much unresolved litigation involving the Strata Corporation, present owners and past owners.


The Financial Statements were fraudulent.


Form B Information Certificates were fraudulent.


Mr. R.S. (Rick) Dickson, President, Ascent Real Estate Management Corporation wrote: “The council approved the financial statements each month, aware that the amount stated in the CRF and the amount shown on the balance sheet in the cash account did not match”.


J. Garth Cambrey of Stratawest Management and J.P. Daem of Strataco are also fully aware of the sordid details.


A recent Information Certificate issued by the current property management firm and signed by W. D. (Bill) Blackall, Strata Manager, Century 21 Prudential Estates (RMD) Ltd. was woefully inadequate in describing the legal battles.  You can contact him directly at 604-273-1745 for more details. 


The photos you provide on your website show that 202 was recently updated with a new open-kitchen-living room.


The work inside 202 1819 Pendrell St. was done without permits.  You can check with the City of Vancouver by calling 604-873-7613. 


For more information about Pendrell Place go to: Vancouver, Pendrell Place, VR 1008, 1819 Pendrell Street .


Please provide full, complete and plain disclosure regarding the continuing fiasco at Pendrell Place.


Yours truly,



James Balderson PhD, QS's Blog

Leaky Rotten Condos and defective residential construction issues.



Vancouver, Pendrell Place: Open Letter to Marvin Lithwick regarding liability for costs

* Leaks, Rot, Mould and Fraud *


St. Patrick’s Day, Monday, March 17, 2008




Mr. Marvin Lithwick

Kahn Zack Ehrlich Lithwick

Barristers and Solicitors


Dear Mr. Lithwick:


Re:   L052371, Hearing on Costs, March 25, 2008

Oldaker v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1008

          Leaks, rot, mould and fraud at Pendrell Place, 1819 Pendrell St., Vancouver, BC


I have been studying how your clients and others responded to leaks, rot, mould and fraud at Pendrell Place as part of a much larger investigation.


Pendrell Place is an unrepaired leaky rotten condo complex.  Mr. Oldaker’s condominium, Strata Lot 22, has been uninhabitable since June 2000; and the building envelope requires rehabilitation (Levelton Reports: August 2000, September 2000, June 2002 and November 2005).


There are other outstanding litigation issues including: fraudulent financial accounts (Mackay Mynett Reports: January 2002 and June 2002); fraudulent Form B Information Certificates issued by Ascent and relied upon by the purchasers of three Strata Lots; as well as various unauthorized expenditures of Strata Corporation monies and other decisions and actions ultra vires the Strata Property Act (SPA).  Particulars can be provided upon request.


I believe a reasonable person whether on the Clapham omnibus or on the Skytrain would conclude that some or all of your clients as members of the Strata Corporation and as members of the Strata Council, as the case may be, did engage in fraudulent conduct and did make deliberate choices that left Mr. Oldaker’s condominium uninhabitable because of the resultant damage from the failure of the building envelope and also left the common property building envelope unrepaired.  Consequently it was the conduct of your clients that brought on much very expensive litigation, including L052371.


It seems to me that a reasonable person, whether using public transit or not, would conclude without doubt that depriving Mr. Oldaker of the use of his condominium for eight years has been unreasonable, significantly unfair and clearly unjust.


Your concerns for your clients are recorded in the transcripts of case management conferences (Case Management (0)  ).  The transcripts show that Mr. Oldaker is seeking damages from your clients and that your clients would have to be parties before that relief could be granted.  Your clients are parties in several related court proceedings.          


The courts seem to have provided authority to award costs in L052371 against some, if not all, of your clients: Tadeson v. Owners, Strata Plan NW 2644, 1999 CanLII 6999 (BC S.C.; Enefer v. Owners Strata Plan LMS 1564, 2005 BCSC 1331 (CanLII) ; Browne et al. v. The Owners, Strata Plan 582, 2007 BCSC 206 (CanLII); Dockside Brewing Co. Ltd. v. Strata Plan LMS 3837, 2007 BCCA 183 (CanLII); Ranftl v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 672 and Wennerstrom, 2007 BCSC 482 (CanLII).


You were counsel for the Strata Corporation in Tadeson wherein you represented the Strata Corporation and wherein the members of the faction opposed to the Petition to repair the leaky condo complex were ordered to pay costs.


G. Stephen Hamilton was Counsel for the Respondent/Appellant Strata Council members in Dockside wherein the members of a faction of Strata Council members were ordered to pay $190,398.99 to the Strata Corporation for wrongly spending Strata Corporation funds on legal fees and were also ordered to pay special costs because of their reprehensible behaviour.


You are familiar with the mess surrounding the Dockside case at the Le Soleil Hotel on Hornby Street because you are on record in at least six Court decisions tied to litigation at the Hotel where the strata council members went amuck as described in Dockside.


G. Stephen Hamilton was also Counsel for the Administrator, J. Garth Cambrey of Stratawest, in Ranftl wherein it was determined that the owners providing instructions to the so-called Strata Corporation lawyer would bear the costs of the legal bill, not the other owners.  In other words, the owners who hired Owen Bird to oppose the petition brought by the leaky condo owner Ranftle were stuck with the legal bill owing to Owen Bird, not the Petitioner Ranftle and not another leaky condo owner, Wennertstrom, who sided with the Petitioner.


J. Garth Cambrey also served as Administrator at Pendrell Place.  G. Stephen Hamilton provided legal advice to Cambrey.


J.P. Daem succeeded J. Garth Cambrey and Stratawest as Property Manager agent for the Strata Council at Pendrell Place.  You are on record as representing J.P. Daem and Strataco.  You provided legal advice to Mr. Daem regarding Mr. Oldaker’s standing in acting alone with respect to the action commenced by Silex Restorations Ltd. against the Strata Corporation for non-payment.  You opined that your representation of former Strata council Members in completely different proceedings did not create a conflict of interest.  You also represent Mr. Daem and Strataco in defense of the Application by the Real Estate Council of British Columbia for production of financial records with respect to potential disciplinary action by the RECBC.


Documents show that G. Stephen Hamilton represented some individual owners of Pendrell Place and that he later referred those clients to Patrick A. Williams of Clark Wilson who presented a “fresh” Petition to the Court for the appointment of an Administrator, which was a major objective of Mr. Oldaker’s Petition then and now, which your client’s were in favour of then but not now, provided it was their Petition and their preferred Administrator rather than Mr. Oldaker’s Petition and Mr. Oldaker’s preferred Administrator.  The Court dismissed with costs the Petition brought by Mr. Williams on behalf of some of the owners of Pendrell Place who are now your clients.    


Just as in the cases cited above, the present owners of the 22 Strata Lots at Pendrell Place are divided into factions and are tangled in litigation, along with past owners. 


Mr. Richard P. Hamilton, a tenant of an owner at Pendrell Place, is on record in L052371 as representing the faction of present owners of two Strata Lots, one being his landlord’s, who consented to Mr. Oldaker’s Petition.  The owners represented by Mr. Richard P. Hamilton are obviously not responsible for costs for they sided with Mr. Oldaker.


Mr. G. Stephen Hamilton is on record as representing the Respondent Strata Corporation, “The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1008”.


All owners of Strata Lots are members of the Strata Corporation, not just some owners: SPA, Part 2 — The Strata Corporation.


Mr. G. Stephen Hamilton therefore could not represent all the owners because one owner, Mr. Oldaker is petitioning the Court and Mr. Richard P. Hamilton represents the present owners of three other Strata Lots and you represent some other present owners along with some past owners.


Mr. G. Stephen Hamilton initiated the series of Case Management Conferences starting on July 27, 2005; he advised the owners not to consent to the Petition; he advised owners to raise funds to pay his fees; he advised the owners to authorize him to represent the Strata Corporation at the Hearing; he prepared responsive materials; he led evidence and argued that the Strata Corporation had behaved reasonably with respect to the Strata Corporation’s statutory responsibility for managing and maintaining the common property (SPA, 3 Responsibilities of strata corporation).


The thrust of G. Stephen Hamilton’s representations to the Court was that Mr. Oldaker had acted unreasonably; that the Petition was completely unnecessary; that the Strata Corporation always intended to do the necessary work; and that the necessary work would be performed in short order.  This is a line of argument that G. Stephen Hamilton has used on behalf of some of the owners for several years.


The court issued Oldaker v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1008, 2007 BCSC 669 (CanLII).


The Reasons for Judgment were issued after inordinate delay: 


Mr. Darrell E. Burns, representing the Petitioner, Mr. Oldaker, convinced the Court that the Court should hold a Reconsideration Hearing because the necessary work was not done in a timely manner, despite evidence during the Hearing that it would be done.


The Reasons for Judgment upon Reconsideration have not been released as at the time of writing this letter.


You attended during case management and pre-Hearing conferences.  You attended on July 27, 2005, before being served with L052371.  You attended on October 28, 2005 after being served, but did not appear “next Friday” as instructed by Madam Justice Gill (see “Another Wrinkle”, below).  You also attended on November 28, 2005.    You did not attend during the Hearing of the Petition.  You did not attend during the Reconsideration Hearing.


Some of your clients, however, were observed in attendance at both Hearings.  One of them, Ms. Dixon, a past owner, provided an affidavit and testified.


Perhaps your clients thought G. Stephen Hamilton, acting as the Strata Corporation’s lawyer, would protect them from bearing the costs of defending Mr. Oldaker’s Petition and that Mr. G. Stephen Hamilton would protect them from the damages that you referred to during case management that might flow from a finding of acts and decisions of significant unfairness committed by some of your clients.  Perhaps you thought the same.


It seems that a judgment for costs against the Strata Corporation would be a judgment against all the present owners: SPA, Part 10 — Legal Proceedings and Arbitration.


Except, of course, Mr. Oldaker and the owners represented by Mr. Richard Hamilton.


Some of the present owners may have had nothing to do or nor real understanding about with instructing G. Stephen Hamilton to intervene in the dispute between factions of owners.


It therefore looks as if costs could be payable by some of your clients who are present members of the Strata Corporation because they did not go on record as consenting to Mr. Oldaker’s Petition: The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 4534 v. Seedtree Water Utility Co. Ltd. et al, 2006 BCSC 73 (CanLII).


If the Court determines that Mr. G. Stephen Hamilton was not representing the Strata Corporation qua Corporation and therefore all owners but instead intervened on behalf of a faction of owners, including some of your clients, using the Strata Corporation as the Strata Corporation was used in Dockside, the names of those owners for which Mr. G. Stephen Hamilton was acting are subject to discovery and those owners could be made parties and thus made to pay costs: Strata Plan VR 1280 v.Oberti Architecture, 2003 BCSC 112 (CanLII); The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1280 v. Oberto Oberti Architecture and Urban Design Inc., 2003 BCCA 213 (CanLII).


Another possibility is that the Strata Corporation’s opposition to Mr. Oldaker’s Petition was entirely misconceived as was the Petition brought by Mr. Williams by some of your clients and that therefore G. Stephen Hamilton of Hammerberg Altman Beaton & Maglio, not your clients, should bear the costs of the series of Case Management Conferences and of L052371.


Surely you would not argue that the opponents of Mr. Oldaker’s Petition should not pay costs.  Such a position would be diametrically opposed to the decision in Tadeson.  it seems to me that you would support the decision in Brown wherein, as in Tadeson, the court found that the opponents should pay the bill, just as the Court found that Collins, backed by the Toth group should pay costs in Enerfer.


I believe that a reasonable person would conclude that the present situation at Pendrell Place is absurd and that justice has been perverted.


I look forward to hearing any arguments that you make as an officer of the Court on behalf of your clients.  


Yours truly,



James Balderson PhD, QS




OCTOBER 28, 2005



16     MR. LITHWICK:  My Lady, could I add another wrinkle to

        17          all this?  We represent two groups of former

        18          strata council members who also feel they've been

        19          abused by these proceedings.  They served on

        20          council three, four years ago, or more.  They have

        21          had -- they volunteered their time and devoted --

        22          put a lot of time and effort into assisting the

        23          strata corporation, and now they find themselves

        24          the defendants in two actions.  With very little

        25          or nothing happening in those actions.

        26               At the last two case management conferences,

        27          the primary issue, if not the only issue, as

        28          described by the other counsel was, that was being

        29          isolated, was dealing with fixing the existing

        30          problems with the building.  And that -- I was

        31          reassured that it would not involve my clients.

        32          Also I was advised that a petition would be issued

        33          dealing with this.

        34               Now, no doubt due to a mistaken belief that I

        35          was served, I did not receive a copy of the

        36          petition until morning.  When I look at the

        37          petition, I see one troubling clause, which

        38          perhaps counsel for the petition can clarify.

        39          Because my understanding is that this petition

        40          does not in any way involve my clients.

        41               And the petition basically -- and I know Your

        42          Ladyship hasn't seen it -- but it seeks a

        43          declaration that -- a declaration that:


        45               The refusal and neglect of the respondent to

        46               compensate the petitioner for losses and

        47               damages approximately caused by the


         1               respondents' breach of section 72 of the

         2               Strata Property Act is significantly unfair.


         4          I assumed, but I would like clarification, that

         5          they are talking about what's happening now.

         6          Because if they're not, if they are referring to

         7          alleged breaches going back several years, now my

         8          clients' are being brought into this present

         9          petition.

        10     THE COURT:  Well, your clients -- if any relief is

        11          sought against them, they need to be parties,

        12          otherwise the relief can't be granted.  So I would

        13          have thought that that would logically take care

        14          of the concern.

        15               But we are not here for that this morning.

        16          The object of this exercise, from my perspective,

        17          was to see if matters could go forward.  That

        18          hasn't worked to this point in time.  It looked

        19          like it was going to work, but now it hasn't.

        20     MR. LITHWICK:  My Lady -- sorry.

        21     THE COURT:  It is 10 o'clock.  I am sorry, if we are

        22          going to be here for longer, you must tell the

        23          registry that.  We have an hour that you have

        24          essentially reserved of time in the courtroom.

        25               This is not satisfactory.  If I have to bring

        26          you back every Friday for every week until we get

        27          to it, I will.  So next Friday at 9 o'clock you

        28          will all come back.



The number of Strata Lots owned by the clients of Richard P. Hamilton is three not two:





Vancouver, Pendrell Place: BCAssessment Authority Appeal Panel reduces 2008 values of condos at Pendrell Place because of unfinished rehabilitation work

* Leaks, Rot, Mould and Fraud *



February 28, 2008


Dear Mr. Oldaker,


Re:   BC Assessment Authority Appeal Hearing Panel today at 10:30 a.m.

          Penthouse 4, Pendrell Place, 1819 Pendrell St., Vancouver, BC, Canada

          Strata lot 22, Strata Plan VR 1008 aka Strata Plan VAS 1008


This will confirm that I, along with Mr. Rudy Eylmann CIA, from the Coalition of Leaky Condo Owners attended the Hearing on your behalf.


I advocated that the value of the Building portion of the assessment for your Penthouse should be reduced to a nominal value of $1,000 because it has been uninhabitable since June 2000.


The following documents were provided to the Panel and BCAA, accompanied by brief narrative comments by yours truly:


          Photo, Mr. Richard B. Oldaker in Penthouse 4, Vancouver Sun, November 17, 2001;


          “Condo chaos bred a nightmare”, Vancouver Sun, November 17, 2001 (extract);


          Photo, Mr. Rudy Eylmann inspecting Penthouse 4, posted to Blog November 15, 2005;


          City of Vancouver Letter, “complete this work, within 30 days”, July 5, 2007;


          Media Alert, “CTV’s W-FIVE investigates leaky condos and other shoddy new homes”, November 1, 2007;


          “From Haven to Hell”, interview with Mr. Oldaker in Penthouse 4, CTV, November 2, 2007;


          Judge Crawford’s decisions: 2003 BCSC 1900 and 2004 BCSC 63;


          Levelton Engineering’s Report: East Wall Condition Assessment, November 21, 2005;


          The Court of Appeal decision: Hamilton v. Ball, 2006 BCCA 243;


          Madam Justice Gill’s decision: Oldaker v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1008, 2007 BCSC 669.


(All of the above documents are available at BLOG.)


The Panel was advised that 2007 BCSC 669 was under reconsideration with a decision expected any day.


The Panel was advised that other lawsuits claiming damages were outstanding.


BCAA did not oppose a reduction in the 2008 Assessed Value of Penthouse 4 and left the amount to be determined by the Panel.  BCAA acknowledged that J.P.Daem of Strataco Property Management had informed BCAA by letter that the building envelope problems at Pendrell Place had been fixed, when they obviously had not been fixed.  BCAA acknowledged they had not inspected Penthouse 4, but had relied “on the file”.


The members of the Panel seemed stunned.


They wanted to know if other condos at Pendrell Place were uninhabitable: “No”. If other condos were damaged and fixed: “Yes”.  Why the owners had not fixed your condo while fixing theirs: “They chose not to; ask them”.  The estimated cost to fix the inside of Penthouse 4: “About $50,000”.  The estimated cost to fix the remainder of the east wall that is leaking and a hazard to passers-by plus the cost to seal the concrete:  “About $300,000, perhaps more.”  The cost of outstanding litigation: “Unknown”.


The Panel adjourned to formulate a decision.


When the Panel returned, the Chairperson announced a decision with the following elements:


A reduction to fix Penthouse 4: $50,000;


A reduction to fix the east wall and seal the concrete:  $300,000;


A reduction in the value of Penthouse 4 equal to 6% of $300,000 (your proportionate share); and


A corresponding proportionate reduction in the value of the other 21 strata lots;


An additional reduction to the value of Penthouse 4: $30,000 for contingencies.


The panel directed BCAA to provide you and all the other owners with a revised 2008 Assessment Notice.


You (not the other owners) have the right to appeal the Panel’s decision upon payment of $30.


The other owners of Pendrell Place may want to thank you for achieving a reduction in assessed values and property taxes for their leaky rotten condos at Pendrell Place.


BCAA would like further documentation to substantiate the estimated cost to repair the east wall and seal the concrete.


The Chairperson found the photos and documents very helpful and suggested that you take pictures in July 2008 and October 2008 in preparation for a possible appeal of the 2009 Assessed Value, especially if the required work has not been done and you still do not have an occupancy permit.


I suggest that you arrange for BCAA to inspect Penthouse 4 just prior to July 2008 or October 2008.


It will also be helpful to provide BCAA with copies of new court decisions.


Yours truly,


Dr. James Balderson PhD, QS










Vancouver, Pendrell Place, Case Study: Leaky condo for sale; MLS Information incomplete; realtor asked to provide full disclosure of contingent liabilities

* Leaks, Rot, Mould and Fraud *


February 27, 2008


Dear Mr. David Crawford aka Mr. Downtown:


Re:  MLS Information: Pendrell Place, 403 – 1819 Pendrell St., Vancouver BC


Your MLS Information is reproduced below for ease of reference.


You failed to mention the following:


>Pendrell Place is a leaky rotten condo complex.


>The present owners are facing significant contingent liabilities.


>Hundreds of thousands of dollars will be required to rehabilitate the defective common property.


>Tens of thousands of dollars will be required to rehabilitate the uninhabitable interior of Mr. Oldaker’s penthouse (Strata Lot 22).  Mr. Oldaker has been deprived of the use of his condominium at Pendrell Place because of leaks, rot and mould for eight years.


>Furthermore, depending on the results of several unresolved legal proceedings, some of the present-owners, and some of the past-owners, and perhaps others, may have to pay thousands of dollars in damages and court-ordered legal costs.


For more information about Pendrell Place: Vancouver, Pendrell Place, VR 1008, 1819 Pendrell Street


Please provide full disclosure to potential purchasers.


Yours truly,


James Balderson




Further Property Details

West End, Vancouver West

Price $429,900.00
Pendrell Place a spacious 2 bedroom suite. Located just steps to Denman street shopping, restaurants. Enjoy a stroll around English Bay and Stanley Park. This suite features 869 sq ft with newer carpets & paint 2 years ago, and new appliances. A solid concrete building. Enjoy a mountain view from your large North and West facing balcony. Great tenants who would like to stay.


REALTOR®: Crawford, David J RE/MAX Masters Realty, (604) 418-7653








Vancouver, Pendrell Place: Mr. Monk tells the court why he bought a leaky rotten condo at Pendrell Place





JULY 27, 2005





 Mr. Monk tells the court why he bought a leaky rotten condo at Pendrell Place, 1819 Pendrell St., Vancouver, BC





45     MR. MONK:  Just to give you a little bit of a

        46          perspective about what happened to me, this

        47          problem with Mr. Oldaker has been in existence








         1          since 1998.  I purchased my condo in year 2000.  I

         2          bought it in November of 2000.  A few weeks prior

         3          to the closing of my sale, Mr. Oldaker had engaged

         4          some engineers to have a look at his suite, and

         5          the recommendation that was given by Levelton

         6          Engineering was that the building was in need of a

         7          building envelope assessment.  And I later joined

         8          council and found a lot of the work that had been

         9          done on the building previously and virtually all

        10          of it had been non-code compliant and no permits

        11          had been issued by the city to do this work.

        12               The closing of the sale for my unit was on

        13          November 2000, the 1st of November.  Mr. Oldaker

        14          advised Mr. Hamilton -- sent him a letter

        15          informing him that his engineers had given him a

        16          report stating that the building was in need of a

        17          building envelope assessment.  The manner in which

        18          Mr. Hamilton responded to Mr. Oldaker was by

        19          sending him a gag order letter on October 27th,

        20          three days before closing of my -- the sale of my

        21          unit, telling him that it was not a leaky condo

        22          and that what he was saying was absurd, and

        23          consequently I bought into a condominium.  I also

        24          received a Form B certificate which certified

        25          certain things about the health of the condo, the

        26          money in the reserve funds, the legal status of

        27          the condominium as well, and virtually everything

        28          stated on my Form B was inaccurate.  So

        29          essentially I even -- I bought my condo.  I had to

        30          settle lawsuits that were already ongoing that

        31          I -- had not been disclosed to me before I

        32          purchased.  And ever since then, up until I -- I

        33          sold out about a few years -- a year and a half

        34          ago, and during the whole time that I got involved

        35          in litigation as an owner, Mr. Hamilton has

        36          represented the individuals which I've sued.  He's

        37          also acted as a strata lawyer.  He's also become

        38          involved in S012351.  The strata corporation was

        39          not even down as a defendant and he showed up

        40          using common funds, and we're now in the appeal,

        41          and he's -- basically during my whole time of

        42          ownership in that condominium I've had to

        43          subsidize the defence of my lawsuits as well.

        44               And I also have a personal lawsuit for my

        45          personal damages, which I would like to have

        46          introduced into the case management as well.

        47               Thank you.


* Leaks, Rot, Mould and Fraud *



1 2  Next»