Source: http://blog.myleakycondo.com/index.php?op=Default&postCategoryId=1593&blogId=1060
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:02:28+00:00

Document:
Vancouver, Pendrell Place: Realtors Burnham and Barker provided false information; requested to provide full disclosure regarding sale of 202 1819 Pendrell St.
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”.
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 yourself...it 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.
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.
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).
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.
25 or nothing happening in those actions.
31 reassured that it would not involve my clients.
38 perhaps counsel for the petition can clarify.
40 does not in any way involve my clients.
2 Strata Property Act is significantly unfair.
5 they are talking about what's happening now.
15 But we are not here for that this morning.
19 like it was going to work, but now it hasn't.
20 MR. LITHWICK: My Lady -- sorry.
24 essentially reserved of time in the courtroom.
28 will all come back.
Re: BC Assessment Authority Appeal Hearing Panel today at 10:30 a.m.
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.
Madam Justice Gill’s decision: Oldaker v. The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1008, 2007 BCSC 669.
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.
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.
Your MLS Information is reproduced below for ease of reference.
>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.
Please provide full disclosure to potential purchasers.
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.
11 had been issued by the city to do this work.
43 subsidize the defence of my lawsuits as well.
46 introduced into the case management as well.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.