45 The Esplanade (Republic/Silver) - Real Estate -

[mburrrrr]

Thanks, the Agreement is very interesting but it does not appear to have a clause allowing anyone to end it. I am not a lawyer but this seems a serious defect to me because, as appears to be happening, situations change and what worked in 1997 may well NOT work in 2027 (??) if/when 45 The Esplanade is built.

I think we are now all agreed that (under the Condo Act and because they undoubtedly do not have $$ available) MTCC 850 cannot 'buy the parking'. In essence, the Agreement allows up to 244 residents of MTCC 850 (including 16 commercial tenants) to rent parking at a 'bulk rate'. I am not clear how the Silver Hotel Group can unilaterally decide to 'dispose of' part of the parking area covered by the Agreement - though doubtless paying $$$$ to someone might be the solution. The question is..... would the payment be to MTCC 850 (with whom they have an Agreement) or with the current 'parking renters' with whom they presumably have contracts. I can see lawyers getting quite rich over all this!

I would be happy to discuss over a beer (if 'the dog' is also invited) but really have little more to contribute. Were I on the Board at MTCC 850 I would be talking to the Corporation's lawyers and getting ready to start paying large legal bills.

Legal costs and any reimbursements would be complicated.

I will let Lola know and send you a direct message.

 

[Bibi L]

Thanks, the Agreement is very interesting but it does not appear to have a clause allowing anyone to end it. I am not a lawyer but this seems a serious defect to me because, as appears to be happening, situations change and what worked in 1997 may well NOT work in 2027 (??) if/when 45 The Esplanade is built.

I think we are now all agreed that (under the Condo Act and because they undoubtedly do not have $$ available) MTCC 850 cannot 'buy the parking'. In essence, the Agreement allows up to 244 residents of MTCC 850 (including 16 commercial tenants) to rent parking at a 'bulk rate'. I am not clear how the Silver Hotel Group can unilaterally decide to 'dispose of' part of the parking area covered by the Agreement - though doubtless paying $$$$ to someone might be the solution. The question is..... would the payment be to MTCC 850 (with whom they have an Agreement) or with the current 'parking renters' with whom they presumably have contracts. I can see lawyers getting quite rich over all this!

I would be happy to discuss over a beer (if 'the dog' is also invited) but really have little more to contribute. Were I on the Board at MTCC 850 I would be talking to the Corporation's lawyers and getting ready to start paying large legal bills.

So I’m pretty sure it’s confirmed the parking garage was never owned by MTCC 850 in the first place, and was always just an agreement with the owner of the garage. When reading through that I also did not see anything that allowed them to open up the private parking to the public. 25 was completed 1988, and I think fully opened 1989, and 45 was completed 1987, so this agreement must’ve been sometime in the late 80s when the building opened, not in 1997. They say that the parking operator, Olde York, not the owner at the time, Avro, were to maintain the parking. Currently, we know that Silver Hotel Group does not want to maintain the garage and says that Impark (at the time) should be maintaining it, and we know what Impark said. They said Silver Hotel Group should maintain it as they own it. But in this agreement it says that the parking operator, Olde York would be the one to maintain the garage, not the owner. Who is actually maintaining it now? SHG or TargetPark?
About the contract, most of the time the gate is locked to the public. But if there is an event, the gate opens and P2/P3 becomes public. When reading through the original agreement, we didn’t see anything mentioning they could do that. The public parking still happens, and the last newsletter from MTCC 850 said they were talking with TargetPark to resolve issues. What has happened since then? What did they resolve, did they come to an agreement? Doesn’t make sense if it was never allowed with the original agreement.

 

[DSC]

So I’m pretty sure it’s confirmed the parking garage was never owned by MTCC 850 in the first place, and was always just an agreement with the owner of the garage. When reading through that I also did not see anything that allowed them to open up the private parking to the public. 25 was completed 1988, and I think fully opened 1989, and 45 was completed 1987, so this agreement must’ve been sometime in the late 80s when the building opened, not in 1997. They say that the parking operator, Olde York, not the owner at the time, Avro, were to maintain the parking. Currently, we know that Silver Hotel Group does not want to maintain the garage and says that Impark (at the time) should be maintaining it, and we know what Impark said. They said Silver Hotel Group should maintain it as they own it. But in this agreement it says that the parking operator, Olde York would be the one to maintain the garage, not the owner. Who is actually maintaining it now? SHG or TargetPark?
About the contract, most of the time the gate is locked to the public. But if there is an event, the gate opens and P2/P3 becomes public. When reading through the original agreement, we didn’t see anything mentioning they could do that. The public parking still happens, and the last newsletter from MTCC 850 said they were talking with TargetPark to resolve issues. What has happened since then? What did they resolve, did they come to an agreement? Doesn’t make sense if it was never allowed with the original agreement.

As I said earlier. the garage was clearly NEVER part of the common elements of MTCC 840 (which would be how a Condo corp would 'own' something) and this all looks like a huge windfall for lawyers. I assume someone is the Owner according to Land Registry Office and that they pay the annual city tax on it. The Lot is LICENCED to Target Park (the Operator).

You ask questions that should definitely be asked of your Condo Board - they should at least know the 'facts' (though they seem to be in some doubt. I assume that you are an owner at MTCC 840 and can thus make official requests for documents etc. The Corporation is allowed to withhold or redact some but certainly not all.

You had an AGM a month ago, that would have been a good opportunity.

 

[Bibi L]

As I said earlier. the garage was clearly NEVER part of the common elements of MTCC 840 (which would be how a Condo corp would 'own' something) and this all looks like a huge windfall for lawyers. I assume someone is the Owner according to Land Registry Office and that they pay the annual city tax on it. The Lot is LICENCED to Target Park (the Operator).

View attachment 582825

You ask questions that should definitely be asked of your Condo Board - they should at least know the 'facts' (though they seem to be in some doubt. I assume that you are an owner at MTCC 840 and can thus make official requests for documents etc. The Corporation is allowed to withhold or redact some but certainly not all.

You had an AGM a month ago, that would have been a good opportunity.

View attachment 582829

@mburrrrr said that the parking was originally sold with the units, but were later bought back by Avro. It was hearsay from an original owner. I was saying that it must’ve been an incorrect fact. Not that you ever said that. MTCC 850! Not 840 (typo!)
Yes, I could attend AGM’s and request more documents, but I’m not too bothered, lol…
Our condo board may know some things, but I’ve asked them lots of questions about the parking before and they do not know much, as they don’t own the parking. Hopefully I can get an update soon, whether it be from the newsletter. Or if I become impatient I might just ask them. We’ll see.