When We Trust Our Intuitions

I'm very happy to have an article, "When Lawyers Trust Their Intuitions" in the current issue of Canadian Lawyer's e-magazine.  Although the research I discuss was done with lawyers it is relevant to anyone who wants to make better decisions.

Read the article to learn about four different faulty cognitive strategies:  The framing effect, confirmation bias, nonconsequentialist reasoning, and the sunk cost fallacy.

Have you ever made a bad decision because you relied on one of these?  Leave me a comment below.

Why You Should Never Ignore a Letter from the Condo Board

When I read about condominium disputes, I am often struck by how the conflict could have been resolved a lot sooner (and for much less money) if only the unit owner had responded to the Board’s letters.

 A typical scenario goes something like this:  The owner gets a letter notifying her that her dog Fluffy has been barking and annoying neighbours, or that her trumpet playing is too loud, or that the holiday decorations she has put up do not comply with the condominium’s rules.  The owner thinks –“There must be some mistake.  Fluffy never barks.” Or, “I never play the trumpet after 10 p.m.” Or, “I put up the same decorations last year and no one said anything.”  So she ignores the letter.  Or maybe she has a chat with the condominium manager, or with a board member, and feels reassured by what she hears.  Another letter comes regarding Fluffy (or the trumpet playing, or the decorations) this time from the board’s lawyer.  She ignores that as well, assuming that whatever problem there may have been has been resolved.  Before she knows it, she is summoned to a mediation with the board and is asked to reimburse the legal expenses that the board incurred in getting her to comply with the regulations.

 It is never a good idea to ignore a communication from your condominium manager or from the board, even if you feel that the complaint against you is ill-founded, or the matter is trivial, or that the rule you are accused of violating is unfair.  Condominium managers and boards have a duty to enforce condominium rules, to respond to complaints, and to persist until the matter is resolved.  It is always in an owner’s best interest to acknowledge and answer a communication from the property manager or from the board.  If you do not respond then the board has no way of knowing your perspective on the matter.

Instead of ignoring a letter do the following:

1. Respond in writing.  Acknowledge receipt of the letter.  If the complaint is based on a misunderstanding or on false information, explain.  (“Fluffy was with me at the cottage during the week in question. Hence the barking must have come from another unit.”)  If the complaint is legitimate, explain how you will address it.  (“In the future, I will limit my trumpet playing to between the hours of 4 and 5 p.m.”)
    
2. Respond promptly, but if the letter has upset you (“How dare anyone object to my holiday decorations!”) wait until you have relaxed enough to write a calm letter.  If you have a friend whom you feel has good judgment, ask him or her to read over the letter before you send it.
    
3.  If you have a conversation with the manager or a board member about the contents of the letter, document this as well.  Soon after the conversation, summarize the main points  in writing and send it to the person you spoke with.  Ask if he or she has anything to add or notices any errors or misunderstandings.
    
4. Maintain a paper trail.  Keep copies of letters and emails about the issue.  If the matter goes further – say to arbitration – it is important to have some record of communication.  Memories fade and managers can be moved to other properties.  Above all, you will want to be able to show an arbitrator or judge that you acted responsibly and took reasonable steps to resolve the conflict.
    
5. Get legal advice, especially if the matter does not seem resolved with your written reply to the initial letter.  It is important to seek advice from a lawyer who has experience with condominium matters.  Don’t ask your cousin the criminal lawyer or one of the in-house lawyers at your workplace.  Paying for good advice early in the process might save you a lot of money later on, should the conflict not resolve easily.

For the most part, disputes between condominium residents, or between unit owners and boards, do not simply fade away.  The early stages of a conflict are a precious time and the first moves made toward resolving a conflict can greatly influence the later stages. Don’t give up your chance to shape the outcome of a dispute by ignoring it in the early stages.




An edited version of this post was published on the "Condo Business" website.

Condo Law Digest – September 2013

Green v. York Condominium Corporation No. 834 and ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Ltd. 2013 ONSC 5004 (CanLII)
Decision Date: July 29, 2013
http://canlii.ca/t/g01g5

One evening in August 2005 Ms Green, a 72 year old resident of YCC 834, entered the elevator on the 16th floor intending to meet visitors in the lobby.  The elevator descended and stopped but the door did not open.  There had been very heavy rain for the past two days and, although Ms Green did not know it, many problems with the elevators.  When the doors failed to open she banged on them for help, and then used the emergency telephone inside the elevator to call the condominium gatehouse.  The person who answered said that he would send help.  After “a long period of time” without assistance of any kind, the elevator door opened a small ways (described by Ms Green as “five or six inches” at her examination-for-discovery and one to one-and-a-half feet at trial) and she tried to exit the elevator sideways.  As she did so the elevator moved again and propelled her out onto the lobby floor.  She slid across the floor and hit a pillar, injuring her head and shoulder.  Her visitors took her to the hospital where she was found to have a broken shoulder.

Ms Green made a separate agreement to settle her claim against YCC 834; the issue for this trial was whether ThyssenKrupp Elevator bore any liability for Ms Green’s injuries.  Her counsel argued that the company had failed in its duty of care under the Occupier’s Liability Act.  Justice O’Marra dismissed the claim based on the following reasons: 1) ThyssenKrupp is not an “occupier” under the Act but an independent contractor; 2) There was no evidence of negligence on their part, and no connections made between their actions and Ms Green’s injuries; and 3) Ms Green was “the author of her own misfortune” because she left a place of safety (i.e. the stuck elevator).

Comment:  It is surprising to me that a stuck elevator would be considered a “place of safety.”

673830 Ontario Limited v. MTCC 673, 2013 ONSC 5218 (CanLII)
Decision Date: August 16, 2013
http://canlii.ca/t/g053b

In May 2011 at MTCC’s annual general meeting unit owners were told that the corporation would receive a payment from the City of Toronto because of an earlier expropriation of common elements land by the TTC, and that this payment would cover the cost of urgently needed roof repairs.  In August the corporation received a payment of about $750,000.  In September the applicant made an offer to purchase one of the building’s units, conditional upon receiving and approving the corporation’s Status Certificate.  The Certificate stated that the Board anticipated that the reserve fund would be adequate in the current fiscal year for the expected cost of major repairs. In November the Board issued a special assessment to unit owners for $1,000,000 for the cost of roof repairs; this was cancelled when it was determined that the roof replacement cost could be lowered.  In February 2012 the Board held a special meeting to explain that the payment from the TTC would cover the expected cost of roof repairs.  Certain unit owners wished to be paid their share of the monies directly (rather than have them applied to the roof repairs) and so the Board issued a second Special Assessment in the exact amount of the TTC payment.  (Whether a unit owner elected to have his share of the TTC payment applied directly to the roof repair, or to pay the assessment and then receive a share of the payment, there would be no net change to the owner’s finances.)

The Applicant demanded a share of the TTC payment.  It argued that it was not informed in the Status Certificate, either about the pending roof repairs or about the anticipated payment from the TTC, and so should be exempt from both Special Assessments.  The Board argued that the Applicant should not profit from the TTC payment without contributing to roof repairs, and that the second Special Assessment was issued for “administrative purposes” only.  The Judge found that the Status Certificate was accurate when it said that the reserve fund would be adequate to cover the cost of anticipated repairs and that the Applicant had not been treated differently from other unit owners.  The application was dismissed.

Comment: Sometimes a Special Assessment is not a Special Assessment.