VPD Unsupervised Access

Background: Learn about the VPD initiated VPD Access here.

Concerns From Legal and Insurance

January 30, 2023 – From Strata Legal Alison Baker to FSR Miroslav Babjarcik Strata Manager

The strata corporation has no authority to waive claims on behalf of the residents. Beyond that, I don’t have any knowledge of the extent to which the strata corporation would be able to bring a claim against the police…

I would be concerned that agreeing to the terms below would prevent the strata corporation from bringing a claim where there is a legal basis for doing so.

January 18, 2023 – From BFL Canada Insurance to FSR Galen Porter (unknown title)

We do recommend obtaining independent legal advice.

Further to our legal team’s review, they recommended bringing up a few key points:

1. Does the VPD require any specific insurance requirements fro this agreement?

2. We recommend getting independent legal advice about the impact of the following:

   LIMITATION OF LIABILITY… the Counterparty now agrees on its own behalf and on behalf of the Building Group not to sue or make any legal claim against the VPD and EComm Group for anything arising under the MOU and to reimburse the VPD and EComm Groups for any costs arising from anyone within the Building Group suing or making a legal claim against the VPD and EComm Group under this MOU

Strata Files Pertaining to VPD Unsupervised Access

1. StrataVPDAccessEmail 1 – Emails January 2023 – And 8 responses from informal, unofficial poll
2. StrataVPDAccessEmail 2 – Emails from December 2022 ->   Pages 8-52 are illegible
3. StrataVPDAccessEmail 3 – Emails November 2022 ->   Pages 7-49 are illegible
4. StrataVPDAccessEmail 4 – Emails April 2023 ->
5. StrataVPDAccessEmail 5 – Emails January 2023 ->

6. Legal Advice and Insurance

7. StrataVPDAccessJan2023Minutes
8. StrataVPDAccessMarch2023Minutes
9. StrataVPDAccessSIGNEDMARCH292023

⊗ Response From a Professional in BC Strata Matters

It is doubtful either the approval or the “Limitations of Liability” clause are legal.
This needs a review by other professionals – legal and insurance. The strata insurer needs to be notified, as the insurer needs to consider the additional liability the strata has agreed to.

This is for open access into common property owned by strata corporation member-owners, not the council.
It says, “This MOU does not grant the VPD access to the non-Common Areas of the Property, such as private residential units.” A council does not hold the authority to authorize this type of entry and what appears to possibly be an illegitimate MOU agreement. Owner approval at a general meeting is required on matters of the commons. This agreement binds them to a liability that they have not been able to discuss or approve, done seemingly to provide protection.

Additionally, it potentially is susceptible to abuse, hence the need for a legal review, open dialogue and approval by owners.

Any and all liabilities, including outside the scope of the authorization, will be born by the building ownership.
It indemnifies the VPD and EComm “under any circumstances,” for any, “direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential, punitive or exemplary costs, expenses, losses, damages or liabilities incurred …”. “… including, without limitation and by way of example only, any loss arising from unauthorized access, systems failure or breach of any term of this MOU …”

Council is only a fiduciary, and does not have absolute authority to authorize common property matters.
Agreements for the commons made without owner authorization on MOU content that overrides laws are illegitimate and have no legal meaning. A council has authority over an approved operations budget, and all else has to receive owner authorization to be legit at some point.

Also, a council / strata has no authority to override or provide permissions, backed up by SPA section 121. Arguably this is for warrantless entry, which falls under the Criminal Code.

Thank you!

1. Council is not transparent.

2. FJL Housing can, and does, control building meetings to suit themselves.

3. Residents’ needs are not being put first.

4. Owners are not having their voices heard or their investments protected.

1. Ensure all owners voices and votes are registered.

2. Compel council to be transparent.

3. Remove vote control and meeting hijacking from FJL Housing.

4. Create a safe and happy home for residents, where tenants want to live long term.

5. Create a stable and secure buildling to protect owners’ investment.

Series of decisions that owners did not have valid input on

The last meeting was just one of a series of decisions that owners did not have valid input on: there’s also the hot water tank issue; the loading bay gate issue; the garbage overflow issue; the snow removal issue; the front gate issue; intercom and buzzer code issues; fob issues; the VPD issue…

Owner and residents must have transparency to make the best decisions.

These issues effect our homes, our safety and our financial futures.

Have Your Voice Heard – John the Sequel Coalition of Owners and Residents.

Meeting Discussion

• As you can read in the Minutes, 14 owners showed up. That makes for 14 votes. I had 4 additional proxy votes from other owners. The representative for FJL Housing Society, Julia Lis, attended with the 18 votes that FJL holds. FJL owns 18 units on the third floor. That made a total of 36 votes out of a possible 127.1. Votes are based on square footage.
• Even though the 36 votes was not a quorum, the meeting went ahead in accordance with the “Strata Plan bylaws or legislation”.
• Three resolutions were on the agenda.
• Before the vote there was a short discussion. During that discussion two things happened that took me by surprise:
• (1) Julia Lis had been directed not to vote for either door option because FJL had not been given enough information.
• (2) The president of council said owners did not receive detailed information because (a) the council was under no obligation to provide such information to owners and (b) council did not wish to confuse the owners by providing details.
• I made the following comments:
• (1) Julia Lis had lots of time to request details before the meeting and coming to the meeting to say that FJL would not vote for either option was wasting everyone’s time and the strata’s money.
• (2) Council saying that (a) they had no obligation to provide details did not speak well to council’s assertion that they are transparent with owners and (b) council is neither smarter nor more experienced than owners and saying council would confuse owners by providing details was insulting. The council president at that point said she wished to change the word “confuse” to “overwhelm”. Which to my mind was pretty much the same thing.

Meeting Resolutions

• Vote 1 – Approval to alter the appearance of the back of the building to accommodate 2 doors instead of 1
• Vote 2 – Approval for loading bay door to be a 2 door system and funded 100% from the contingency reserve fund
• Vote 3 – Approval for loading bay door to be replaced by 1 door with blended funding from owners and contingency
• Please see the minutes for a fuller explanation of the resolutions.
• If Vote 1 was approved, then Vote 2 would be called. If Vote 1 was not approved then Vote 3 would be called.

Meeting Voting

• Vote 1 – 18 in favour, 18 against. Defeated.
  Individual owners voted in favour. FJL voted against.
• Vote 2 – Not called because vote 1 was defeated.
• Vote 3 – 2 in favour, 34 against. Defeated.

Meeting Result

• A complete waste of time for those who attended.
• A waste of strata dollars to set up and prepare the meeting and pay FSR extra for the meeting outside regular hours.
• An insight into the thinking of council and how they feel towards owners.
• Another long wait for anything to happen to secure the loading bay door. *The cost increases with each delay.
• A reminder that FJL can control a meeting with their 18 votes.

My Thoughts

• Owners & Residents need to provide direction for the good of the building.
• How to do this?
• Creation of a Sequel Coalition of Owners & Residents (SCOR)
• Owners who are unable to attend a meeting may give their proxies to someone. That person would vote for the Owner, as directed by the Owner. That last part is important: As directed by the Owner.
• I would like to see Owners vote. And it doesn’t matter if they do not vote as I vote, it is important that they vote. The more input from Owners the better the decisions for the building.
• When I was on council I asked for and received a lot of input from Owners & Residents and that input saved strata $2500 on a $7500 roof maintenance bill.
• And Owners & Residents recommending that I check out other garage door companies lead me to find Garage Door Ninja who proposed the 2 door loading bay door system. Bringing the cost down from an estimated $126,000 to $47,000.
• Residents live here and know what’s going on. So even if a person is renting and doesn’t vote, their perspective is important for the stability and safety of the building. We want long term tenants. People to stay and live here and make it their home.
• Owners & Residents were vital during my time on council for my decisions.
• So please, join the Sequel Coalition of Owners & Residents and let’s make our buildling the best it can be.

Please Check Out SCOR

Share your input, feedback and voice for a safe and happy Sequel

Ask yourself what trauma the VPD did to that woman.

Trauma that she will live with and the VPD will never answer for.

Then watch the video below and draw your own conclusions.

How did this start?
Security guard said he saw the woman sitting near a vehicle. No mention of whether she was on private property or why security guard told her to move.

Video Mark:
Woman calls out I paid for these. (Art supplies she had bought at the Dollar Store.)

Video Mark 1:40:
VPD Jones has shot her once and tells her to get down. She is unable to get down fast enough and Jones yells “Get down or you’re gonna get it in the face.”

> Watch for the Supervisor VPD officer to exit the car and stand just behind his officers who are laughing. He said in investigation report that he heard no laughter.
> Watch Jones make a call on his phone. VPD did no medical check after woman was shot, phone for medic and call is logged as routine. Not urgent. Takes an hour to get woman any medical attention. Two years later woman still has scars and walks with a limp.

Think this is an isolated VPD one-off…

2 Vancouver police officers caught on video posing with dead man on Third Beach

Black community advisory group cuts ties with Vancouver police.

Investigation launched after Vancouver police officer hits pedestrian on Hastings Street

IIO investigate serious injury of man during arrest by Vancouver police

Vancouver man accusing VPD of police brutality

Vancouver man levels allegations of police brutality against VPD

Caught on cam: Allegation of police brutality in DTES

Const. Nicole Chan reported sex assault and extortion by VPD sergeant before her death, inquest hears

Psychiatrist gives evidence that contradicts what a Vancouver police officer told Coroner’s Court.

7 VPD officers to face hearing over allegations of unnecessary force in death of Myles Gray

Vancouver police officer guilty of assault with weapon in arrest of Black man stopped for jaywalking

VPD’s response to inquest into suicide of Constable Chan, who filed assault complaint against supervisor

Vancouver police officers claim union reps told them not to take notes after death of Myles Gray

More Vancouver police officers to testify today at inquest into Myles Gray’s death

Canadian coroners rejecting excited delirium as cause of police-related deaths

Firefighters say VPD officers told them not to check Myles Gray’s condition in last moments

On This Page:
Introduction | Council Vote Email Thread | VPD Project Access Brochure/MOU | Response from BC Strata Professional

Council Wants to Allow the VPD Unsupervised Access

Council Wants to Allow the VPD Unsupervised Access

The VPD will be able to access the building whenever they wish and will have no liability for any damage to property or persons. Scary enough right? But wait, The VPD has no liability even if they enter outside the terms of the MOU. Wow! That means Owners are on the hook for all liability that results from authorized or illegal entry by the police. Who would agree to this?

Note: VPD has not had an issue accessing the buiding making this unecessary.

Council has majority voted to allowed the VPD open access to the building.
I voted against it.
I am posting the documents received from the VPD for your review.
VPD calls it Project Access.
I call it something else but am sharing the information so you may draw your own conclusions.

Update: I have contacted the strata insurance agency, BFL: They were not informed about this and have concerns regarding the the VPD Project Access and implications for strata liability.

I am in contact with Pivot Legal Society and am reaching out to the BC Civil Liberties Association to assess the legal implications.
I will ask council to get an opinion on the insurance liability and how our buidling insurance would increase — Or if it is even possible to be insured for such liability.

Of special note from the VPD Agreement.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
The Counterparty now acknowledges and agrees that neither the VPD nor EComm, nor any of their respective officers or other personnel (collectively, “the VPD and E-Comm Group”) will, under any circumstances, be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential, punitive or exemplary costs, expenses, losses, damages or liabilities incurred by the Counterparty or any of its owners, residents, or occupants, (collectively the “Building Group”) arising from any act or omission of the VPD and E-Comm Group, which but for this MOU would not or could have occurred, including, without limitation and by way of example only, any loss arising from unauthorized access, systems failure or breach of any term of this MOU by the VPD and E-Comm Group, and by entering into this MOU, the Counterparty now agrees on its own behalf and on behalf of the Building Group not to sue or make any legal claim against the VPD and EComm Group for anything arising under this MOU and to reimburse the VPD and E-Comm Group for any costs arising from anyone within the Building Group suing or making a legal claim against the VPD and E-Comm Group under this MOU.

AUTHORITY
The Counterparty hereby represents and warrants to VPD that it has full power, discretion and authority to enter into this legally binding MOU in relation to theProperty and to cause the due performance of its obligations hereunder and the giving of full effect to the intent hereof.

⊗ Response From a Professional in BC Strata Matters

It is doubtful either the approval or the “Limitations of Liability” clause are legal.
This needs a review by other professionals – legal and insurance. The strata insurer needs to be notified, as the insurer needs to consider the additional liability the strata has agreed to.

This is for open access into common property owned by strata corporation member-owners, not the council.
It says, “This MOU does not grant the VPD access to the non-Common Areas of the Property, such as private residential units.” A council does not hold the authority to authorize this type of entry and what appears to possibly be an illegitimate MOU agreement. Owner approval at a general meeting is required on matters of the commons. This agreement binds them to a liability that they have not been able to discuss or approve, done seemingly to provide protection.

Additionally, it potentially is susceptible to abuse, hence the need for a legal review, open dialogue and approval by owners.

Any and all liabilities, including outside the scope of the authorization, will be born by the building ownership.
It indemnifies the VPD and EComm “under any circumstances,” for any, “direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential, punitive or exemplary costs, expenses, losses, damages or liabilities incurred …”. “… including, without limitation and by way of example only, any loss arising from unauthorized access, systems failure or breach of any term of this MOU …”

Council is only a fiduciary, and does not have absolute authority to authorize common property matters.
Agreements for the commons made without owner authorization on MOU content that overrides laws are illegitimate and have no legal meaning. A council has authority over an approved operations budget, and all else has to receive owner authorization to be legit at some point.

Also, a council / strata has no authority to override or provide permissions, backed up by SPA section 121. Arguably this is for warrantless entry, which falls under the Criminal Code.

Only Owners May Make A Fob Request.

Request a change or a new intercom buzzer number.