# People in townhouse complex and garbage



## digitalatlas (Jun 6, 2015)

Anyone have ideas on how to deal with people who don't break their garbage down or leave items that they city won't pick up?

Though about charging back to owner, but it's hard to verify which unit is the offender. Board members have been taking stuff to the dump personally, but this is no solution. 

Anyone successfully dealt with this issue in some innovative way? 

Thanks


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Have a Board resolution to install a security system with motion detected cameras. A simple 4 camera system from Costco with a DVR will be a deterrent and then advertise it to homeowners with appropriate signage that it is being installed for security reasons. Perhaps $3k total with installation by an electrician.

We had issues at our non-profit a few years ago with certain petty thefts and installed such a 4 camera system. To our knowledge, thefts stopped and we rarely ever looked at the tapes unless we had oodles of spare time just to scan through it.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> Have a Board resolution to install a security system with motion detected cameras. A simple 4 camera system from Costco with a DVR will be a deterrent and then advertise it to homeowners with appropriate signage that it is being installed for security reasons. Perhaps $3k total with installation by an electrician.
> 
> We had issues at our non-profit a few years ago with certain petty thefts and installed such a 4 camera system. To our knowledge, thefts stopped and we rarely ever looked at the tapes unless we had oodles of spare time just to scan through it.


Yes it is sad that residents don't follow the rules or basics of courtesy and neighbourly behaviour. In the condo I was a board member of, we used video a few times to follow up on property damage or rules not followed. 

Around the same time as you provide residents with the notice of the new camera system, also issue a notice reminding people of the rules regarding proper garbage disposal procedures. People might just make the connection that they will be on-camera when improperly disposing of their junk.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

digitalatlas said:


> Anyone have ideas on how to deal with people who don't break their garbage down or leave items that they city won't pick up?
> 
> Though about charging back to owner, but it's hard to verify which unit is the offender. Board members have been taking stuff to the dump personally, but this is no solution.
> 
> ...


The camera idea seems likely to work if you combine it with a notice re garbage disposal as also suggested.

Ah the joys of shared ownership living. When I was living in a condo, there was a problem with people parking in Visitors Parking when they came home for lunch. They found it more convenient than parking in their assigned underground parking spot apparently. But it meant there was nowhere for Visitors to then park.

Our Property Manager made a note of the licence plates, then in the evening went down to the underground parking, found the offending car, noted the parking space number which could then be matched to who it was assigned to. Then he waited a couple of weeks while he compiled a list of those who were parking in Visitor Parking over that time period. Then he posted a notice 'Naming and Shaming' each and every one of them.

He pulled no punches, it referred to the 'selfish and uncaring individuals who put themselves ahead of everyone else'.

An alternative to a notice about the cameras and the garbage issue would be to put in the cameras, say nothing, catch them in the act and then 'name and shame them'. 

Such a move in regard to one problem may well prove a deterrent against other types of abuse. No one messed with our Property Manager if the knew what was good for them. If he told you, 'you can't hang laundry or park your bicycle on your balcony', you knew what would come next if you didn't comply. He posted another notice when someone's little dog decided to pee on the hallway carpet and another resident happened to see it and reported it to the Property Manager. You can imagine what that notice said. 

The condo board also started posting notices each month listing any and all fines or orders to comply that were issued to any residents and naming them. They just posted a copy of the relevant page of the Minutes of Meeting.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Condo living really does have some real negatives sometimes. After posting my response above, I remember another issue. Our condo rules allowed dogs but realizing that not everyone is a dog lover and some people genuinely have a fear of any dog of any size, the rule allowed dogs but with 'conditions'. It did not limit size or breed but it forbid dogs to be taken on an elevator and it required dogs to be 'carried by the owner' in hallways and stairways.

I thought that was a pretty innovative way to handle it. Try carrying your 60 lb. pitbull up 14 flights of stairs.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

Longtimeago said:


> The condo board also started posting notices each month listing any and all fines or orders to comply that were issued to any residents and naming them. They just posted a copy of the relevant page of the Minutes of Meeting.


There was so much wrong there...

In many jurisdictions the condo legislation makes such information confidential, and prohibits releasing it without the consent of the person to whom the information relates. Confidential information should either be redacted if the minutes are released, or kept in a separate set of confidential meeting minutes. 

Also if it was in Ontario, the Ontario Condo Act specifies that condo corporations can't assess fines unless they indemnify the corporation against an actual loss it has incurred.

Ironic that the condo board and manager would violate the condo legislation in an attempt to enforce the rules. The board and manager should know better.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Our cameras paid for themselves just with the one aimed at the garbage cans. We can chargeback many things (after amending the bylaws) and the savings from calling private hauling.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

GreatLaker said:


> There was so much wrong there...
> 
> In many jurisdictions the condo legislation makes such information confidential, and prohibits releasing it without the consent of the person to whom the information relates. Confidential information should either be redacted if the minutes are released, or kept in a separate set of confidential meeting minutes.
> 
> ...


There is the LAW and there is the real world GreatLaker. If you post a copy of the Minutes and it 'names and shames' some people, it would be up to the individuals who were named to hire a lawyer and take it to court. Do you need me to tell you how many did so? None.

The only people who see 'so much wrong there' are those who are named and shamed. IF someone had decided to take it to court, the practice would probably have had to be stopped but until then it remains an effective way to deal with offenders.

Arguing, 'this is unlawful' doesn't change what has happened. It's like a recent report I saw about a barn that was designated 'historic' when an owner wanted to demolish it as an eyesore. The owner demolished it anyway, got taken to court and pleaded, 'mea culpa' and paid the fine. All that matters is the barn is GONE. No one can make anyone else obey a law AFTER the offense has been committed. In this case, it may be illegal to name and shame but once it is done, the LAW can't put the offenders privacy back in the bag can they.

I don't know about you but I have served on a condo board and am well aware of how thankless a job it is and of how many unit owners KNOWINGLY and REPEATEDLY simply ignore rules that are there for the greater good. I doubt any condo board does not first ask them to cease and desist but when that request is ignored, then in my opinion, the offender has lost all rights to have their behaviour remain private.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

GreatLaker said:


> There was so much wrong there...
> 
> In many jurisdictions the condo legislation makes such information confidential, and prohibits releasing it without the consent of the person to whom the information relates. Confidential information should either be redacted if the minutes are released, or kept in a separate set of confidential meeting minutes.
> 
> ...


I think I am with LTA and say so much was right.

In BC there is no "condo legislation" making "such information" confidential, and with good reason. Our Strata Property Act has no such provisions and it sets out but a single contravention that may constitute an "offence", _viz.
_
*Strata Property Act*

*Offences*
290 An individual who knowingly makes a false statement in a Certificate of Strata Corporation in the prescribed form commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $2 000 or to imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or to both.
*
Application of other laws
*291 (1)The Business Corporations Act does not apply to a strata corporation except as specifically provided in this Act.

(2)Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act or to the regulations.

*Offence Act*

*General offence*
5 A person who contravenes an enactment by doing an act that it forbids, or omitting to do an act that it requires to be done, commits an offence against the enactment.

So, in BC at least, if you want to avoid being shamed by the public postings of the strata council, obey the rules. The legislation will provide no succour. That leaves one to one's remedies at common law. There, the only hope would be an action in defamation. But then, if what is posted happens to be true, there is no defamation. The defence of "truth" or "justification" would shield the impugned words, as likely would the defence of "qualified privilege".

Also, in BC, the Small Claims Division of the Provincial Court has no jurisdiction to hear claims sounding in defamation. That means a libel or slander action must be brought in Supreme Court. Given the costs involved in that endeavour, one had better be able to prove substantial damages indeed.

But this discussion, in itself, provides one reason, of many, why condo ownership is a bad idea. The so-called condo "insurance crisis" being bruited about in BC these days is another reason.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I don't know where you live but in my township you can get fined $5000 for illegal dumping. You may want to inquire about local laws at the town hall and put up a warning sign along with the cameras.

If the miscreants know they will have to go to court and get fined they may figure saving $3.25 on a garbage bag tag is not worth it.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I don't know where you live but in my township you can get fined $5000 for illegal dumping. You may want to inquire about local laws at the town hall and put up a warning sign along with the cameras.
> 
> If the miscreants know they will have to go to court and get fined they may figure saving $3.25 on a garbage bag tag is not worth it.


I took it that the offenders were dumping on Condominium property Rusty O'Toole, not public property. That law would not apply.

Thanks Mukhang Pera for the BC info and your agreement with my earlier response. As it happens the Strata I was referring to was in fact in BC where I lived for 3 years or so in that condo. 

But what I was also trying to get at in my response to GreatLaker was that it doesn't matter what the LAW says, what matters is what is done.  The problem with going to the law for a resolution is that there is always a time lag and often it is a significant time lag. I read of one such case where it took the Condominium Corporation 5 YEARS to finally get a ruling that forced an owner to sell. Then besides the time lag there is as you also point out the cost of going to the law for a resolution.

I often see people talking about laws as if they could be applied instantly. Saying, 'take him to court' is fine but what about in the meantime when the person is continuing to offend? I read of one case where a resident of a condo was repeatedly emptying cat litter over the balcony every few days and on one occasion it actually landed on the head of a gardener. Going to the law to resolve that does the gardener no good in the meantime when the resident continues the behaviour. I couldn't care less about the privacy rights of the resident or even if the law says the Condo Board could not name and shame that resident. I'd do it anyway and the 'law be dammed'. Let the resident pay to take the Condo Board to court; let the judge decide what penalty should be assessed; plead Mea Culpa after having explained the circumstances to the judge and pay the fine.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I do believe you can be fined for illegal dumping on private property. You would have to check your local ordinance.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

Wow, LTA and Mukhang, those are some harsh responses. 

I have been on condo boards, as a director, treasurer and president. It's not a thankless job; many people thanked me for my efforts. It is a frustrating role, fussing with budgets and building operation and maintenance requirements, and dealing with management and staffing issues. And you do have to deal with some percent of selfish inconsiderate d!cks.

It sounds like the Ontario Condominium Act gives condo corps more teeth than the BC strata regulations. My experience is in ON. Unpaid condo fees have higher priority for repayment than almost anything else, including mortgages. Another gem in the Ontario Condo Act is that legal fees incurred by a condo corp in enforcing the act, its regulations, and the corporation's governing documents can be collected in the same way as condo fees.

So some miscreant damages the property or leaves construction debris from renovations, or leaves their broken fridge in the garbage area and has a chargeback for repairs or cleanup. Or they use their unit for short term rentals (Airbnb etc) which is strictly prohibited at one building I lived in. The condo tells the owner this is prohibited by the rules, and they have been charged back for the building to recover costs. They are ignorant of their responsibilities so they tell the manager to eff-off. Manager advises it will be referred to the corporation's lawyer if not resolved by x-date. They are angry and filled with hubris, so they ignore it. As soon as they don't pay their condo fees the building has a lien on the property. The lien must be registered which results in a charge to the owner from the corp for preparing the advisory notices to the owner, then lawyer costs for preparing the paperwork, plus a lien search. This can easily add up to hundreds of $.

Some will wake up and pay, some won't. At that point the power of sale process may commence. There is a well defined process that includes court application, sheriff attending when locks are changed, property assessment and sale. It takes about 6 months. Or if there is a mortgage, the mortgagee is advised and asked if they wish to pay the charges and they usually do. As president I signed several approvals for the lien paperwork. Only once in my director terms was the power of sale process invoked, and the owner seemed to be happy for us to unload his property. We had owners in half million dollar units, driving $50k cars, pleading for another month's grace in paying their condo fees, but if the condo accedes to that request there is a risk they never pay, and the unpaid fees must be absorbed by the other unit owners, so with whom do you think the board's sympathies lie?

We clearly have differing views on how condos should effectuate their obligations, and some of that seems due to the differing regulations between ON and BC. I would never be part of a condo board that did not know its responsibilities, take them seriously, and act in accordance with the applicable regulations and governing documents.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yup.....taking the law into your own hands can quickly turn yourself into the defendant instead of the plaintiff.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

GreatLaker said:


> Wow, LTA and Mukhang, those are some harsh responses.


What is so harsh about saying it should be acceptable to resort to the use of "naming and shaming" those who, in your own words:


GreatLaker said:


> don't follow the rules or basics of courtesy and neighbourly behaviour.


 ?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Naming and shaming has been around for a whole lot longer than condos have GreatLaker and interestingly, history shows it has been quite effective when employed. 

What makes it a problem today is that being 'pc' has become part of the laws known as 'privacy laws'. I really don't care about being politically correct. I just care about result. If it works, use it. 

On a lighter note, here is a story I like about naming and shaming. The media as I am sure you know, do it all the time and a Professor of Law in the UK was named in a newspaper article by one of the UK's tabloid press as having been accused of rape by a student. The reporter quoted the accuser directly in the article. That's legal. Only after a police investigation which resulted in no charges being filed, the reporter did not publish a retraction of any kind or offer an apology of any kind which the 'accused' asked be done. 

So as you can probably guess, that Professor's reputation was in tatters and he while he kept his job, he was passed over for tenure by the University. He was understandably upset. So he decided to get even.

He followed the reporter home; knocked on his door and when the reporter came to the door, he punched him in the face. The reporter called the police and had him charged with assault. It went to court. Now comes the fun part.

When they judge asked the Professor what he had to say for himself, he stood up and said something like, 'Your honour, I admit to hitting this man, I was very angry not only because he ruined my reputation by writing an article about me that was false but apparently he is also reputedly a wife beater and pedophile. I am prepared to accept my punishement your honour.' He was fined some money. 

But since this case was about a reporter who had ruined the Professor's reputation, there were of course some other reporters in the court looking to report on the story. The next day, several headlines read something like, 'reporter accused of being a wife beater and pedophile'. The reporter's career was finished.

I'm having a senior moment and can't remember the law that covers this but I'm sure mukhang pera will tell us. Basically, anything someone says in a courtroom (or parliament) cannot be used against them. In other words, the reporter could not sue for slander any more than the Professor could for what the reporter wrote in his newspaper article.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> I'm having a senior moment and can't remember the law that covers this but I'm sure mukhang pera will tell us. Basically, anything someone says in a courtroom (or parliament) cannot be used against them. In other words, the reporter could not sue for slander any more than the Professor could for what the reporter wrote in his newspaper article.


Mais of course. The legal doctrine to which you refer LTA is that of "absolute privilege". It holds that "Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are made on an occasion of absolute privilege. The privilege extends to pleadings, statements made in documents used in the proceeding, and statements contained in affidavits." For a recent BC example, see:


Citation:

0976820 B.C. Ltd. v. Leung, 2018 BCSC 1725 at para. 33

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/16/2018BCSC1725.htm

The privilege has been held to extend to quasi-judicial proceedings, such as proceedings before administrative tribunals. Here is one applying it to proceedings before BC's residential tenancy tribunal:

Zanetti et al v. Bonniehon Enterprises et al, 2003 BCCA 231

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/03/02/2003bcca0231.htm


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Mukhang pera said:


> Mais of course. The legal doctrine to which you refer LTA is that of "absolute privilege". It holds that "Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are made on an occasion of absolute privilege. The privilege extends to pleadings, statements made in documents used in the proceeding, and statements contained in affidavits." For a recent BC example, see:
> 
> 
> Citation:
> ...


Thank you Mukhang pera. Absolute privilege it is. Huh, I thought that term only applied to my wife. Guess I got mixed up in my senior moment. Wait till I break the bad news to her.

Anyway the point of the story was to never underestimate the power of naming and shaming. It can bring down governments.


----------



## tavogl (Oct 1, 2014)

We recently bought into a newbuild condo and are facing the same issue with the garbage, actually today I found a box full of garbage just outside the garbage room... condo boards and myself are discussing the security camera thing but everybody seems to think it's overly expensive. Does anyone have any examples of models/brands used and around how much was spent? I think cameras are a great way to create accountability, even more when there's so many renters in the building that don't really care about fines or condo fees going up.

If anyone has any experience installing or buying security camera systems and has any idea how much would this cost the info would be greatly appreciated.

Thx


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

People that do this tend to be lowlifes and not too smart.

Sometimes but not always you can go through the garbage and find incriminating evidence.

Someone did this in the park behind our house and I found some letters with their address on it.

I took it back to their place and left it at their front door.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

tavogl said:


> We recently bought into a newbuild condo and are facing the same issue with the garbage, actually today I found a box full of garbage just outside the garbage room... condo boards and myself are discussing the security camera thing but everybody seems to think it's overly expensive. Does anyone have any examples of models/brands used and around how much was spent? I think cameras are a great way to create accountability, even more when there's so many renters in the building that don't really care about fines or condo fees going up.
> 
> If anyone has any experience installing or buying security camera systems and has any idea how much would this cost the info would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thx


The people who say it's too expensive, what do they mean?
Cheap cameras can be as little as $100, nicer 4k systems with multiple cameras like Lorex at Costco are only a few hundred bucks.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

tavogl said:


> We recently bought into a newbuild condo and are facing the same issue with the garbage, actually today I found a box full of garbage just outside the garbage room... condo boards and myself are discussing the security camera thing but everybody seems to think it's overly expensive. Does anyone have any examples of models/brands used and around how much was spent? I think cameras are a great way to create accountability, even more when there's so many renters in the building that don't really care about fines or condo fees going up.
> 
> If anyone has any experience installing or buying security camera systems and has any idea how much would this cost the info would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thx


Can't help on camera costs but that's been answered.

Regarding the boxes of garbage, what's in the boxes? Look for any mail etc. that could identify the offender. If you find something that will let you identify them, then you have several choices unrelated to the camera question.

You could slit the bottom of the box open and place it at the door of the offender so that when they pick it up, everything falls out the bottom of the box.

You could send a letter to the owner if it is a rental and tel the owner they are expected to speak to their tenant about the consequences of failing to comply with the condo rules/bylaws etc. You could also warn the owner of the consequences to them if they fail to have their tenant comply.

Renters are a problem no matter what anyone says about them being the same as resident owners. The fact is they are not. We found that when asked if they had been given and READ the condo rules/bylaws, even owners often had not read them and renters were rarely even given them by the owners. You can send a letter to the owners in that case as well to warn them of the consequences to them if they do not provide a written copy of the condo rules/bylaws to their tenants and INSURE they are read. The best way we found to deal with renters quite frankly was to make life difficult for the owners who have bought to rent. 

By the way, in most municipalities cardboard boxes are NOT allowed in with garbage at all. They must be separated.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Also re renters, we found that we were not allowed to pass a bylaw as a new build, that did not allow any rentals. However (this is in BC Strata laws), this applied ONLY to first time owners. It was allowed to have a bylaw that said no rentals were allowed for any second or subsequent owners. So we did that which meant any owner who bought to rent when new could rent but when it came to selling it, they could not pass on that right to rent. By attrition, that will remove all rental units over time.


----------

