-- Someone tried hard to post this as a comment to other topics to draw attention to it ; I thought it would be good to have it as a separate topic, to show on the first page for everybody; also when you want to post something new read at the top of the blog how to do it (right above "Enjoy!": "To post a new message on this blog as a new topic send an email with your message to: ycc244.toronto@blogger.com " --- here it is: ---
Questions to Catherine and Dan Hu at our AGM
This is the Condo Act Section--- 32
Conduct of business
32. (1) Subject to subsection 42 (5), the board of a corporation shall not transact any business of the corporation except at a meeting of directors at which a quorum of the board is present. 1998, c. 19, s. 32 (1).
Quorum
(2) A quorum for the transaction of business is a majority of the members of the board. 1998, c.. 19, s. 32 (2).
For our YCC244 the board member of 5 ,the majority must be 3+. That means any transactions done by only 2 board members is illegal. Even if there were 3 Board members if the 3 rd one was appointed by the left 2 Board members.
So we must ask Catherine and Dan Hu and verify :
1. How many Board members were there on the Board when you signed the contract with the contractor NAN BEI for the swimming pool?
2. How many Board members were there on the Board when you signed the contract with NAN BEI for the stucco project of Building A & B?
3. Why did you sign such big projects with the same contractor NAN BEI and let NAN BEI to sub-contract the stucco project some one else?
4. Was it worth $100,000+ to do the swimming pool? Was it worth using out our Reserve Fund before you step down to do the stucco?
5. Did you guys get money from NAN BEI and other of your contractors, if yes how much? How much per unit owner?
6. Do you want to continue doing crazy things like that by running the Board again?
This is the Condo Act Section--- 32
Conduct of business
32. (1) Subject to subsection 42 (5), the board of a corporation shall not transact any business of the corporation except at a meeting of directors at which a quorum of the board is present. 1998, c. 19, s. 32 (1).
Quorum
(2) A quorum for the transaction of business is a majority of the members of the board. 1998, c.. 19, s. 32 (2).
For our YCC244 the board member of 5 ,the majority must be 3+. That means any transactions done by only 2 board members is illegal. Even if there were 3 Board members if the 3 rd one was appointed by the left 2 Board members.
So we must ask Catherine and Dan Hu and verify :
1. How many Board members were there on the Board when you signed the contract with the contractor NAN BEI for the swimming pool?
2. How many Board members were there on the Board when you signed the contract with NAN BEI for the stucco project of Building A & B?
3. Why did you sign such big projects with the same contractor NAN BEI and let NAN BEI to sub-contract the stucco project some one else?
4. Was it worth $100,000+ to do the swimming pool? Was it worth using out our Reserve Fund before you step down to do the stucco?
5. Did you guys get money from NAN BEI and other of your contractors, if yes how much? How much per unit owner?
6. Do you want to continue doing crazy things like that by running the Board again?
First time I hear about NAN BEI.
ReplyDeleteI googled "NAN BEI toronto contractor" and I got nothing. Who knows who's this and how you can get more information on NAN BEI? Is it correctly spelled?
Leave the contractor out of this!!!! That can be looked at if we have a change in the Board. That will only happen if Catherine and her people are defeated.right we need to have an orderly meeting and ask the right questions esp.f the Lawyer ....Is Nancy supposed to be still on the board. This will hopefully be their demise. DON'T MAKE THE CONTRACTS A DISTRACTION.. DEAL WITH THE PRESENT ...THE REST CAN BE LOOKED INTO LATER...PLEASE USE COMMON SENSE.
ReplyDeletegood luck ...vote and hope this community finally wins..
past is past. we want the current and future. please star from following the law. here is one:
ReplyDelete"Replacement made by board
(2) If a vacancy arises in the board and a quorum of the board remains in office, the majority of the remaining members of the board may appoint any person qualified to be a member of the board to fill the vacancy until the next annual general meeting. 1998, c. 19, s. 34 (2)."(Condominium Act, 1998.PART IV CORPORATION, Directors and Officers,34.Vacancy. retrieved November 20, 2010 from
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_98c19_e.htm#BK43).
Only knowing the past can we know the current and future!
ReplyDeleteIn the past, Dan Hu, Catherine broke the laws in many oocasions;
Today Dan Hu, Bob, Nancy again broke the laws by not opening Nancy's position for AGM;
Such a new board will act exactly the same if Nancy remains as the quorum of Dan Hu, Bob and Nancy can do anything they want. Newly elected Seamus and Mona can do nothing even they are so passionnate for our community with their expertise.
With law breakers on the Board, our community will never get really better.
Why did they break the laws?
For their own interests!
Who are the victims of laws being broken?
All the owners except the law breakers!
Our money was wasted a lot! But they just fooled you that the price of everything is going up so we must raise our maintenance fee.
With the law breakers on the board, no good future for our community!!!!
ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS.
ReplyDeleteYes they knowing broke the law
It seams for their own interests
We all are the victims of their utter disregard of the law and you can only expect the same as they control the Board.
This community Must stand up for our rights if not these people will continue to take them away.
Very Concerend