CMHC

[Editor]

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC):

See also Tory MP John Cummins calls for a Gomery-style inquiry into leaky condos and Is there a LEAKY CONDO class action I might join?.

In general:

There are frequent updates and we like many of the features at CMHC's website but at this late stage in the leaky condo debacle, we would have expected more and better information for consumers on building envelope renovations, including some basic cost, time, materials and durability estimates. Without this information, it's impossible to tell if the fix is actually worth the cost.

For instance, how do we know a 'renovated' building won't leak again in 10 years when the warranty expires? What if problems persist before the expiry date? Even if the repair cost is covered, who wants to live through that kind of horror even once? Would a prospective buyer be well advised to risk buying a unit in a rainscreen-renovated complex?

We would also have expected more information on consumer protection strategies -- how to set up ongoing professional inspections and reserve fund studies, for example -- and how maintenance schemes operate in various jurisdictions. This is particularly important in B.C., where we have no legislative assistance. We're currently attempting this type of analysis at Condo Law FAQs, but it's a lengthy process that would benefit, to say the least, from CMHC's research resources.

It's become apparent since we began our investigation into leaky condos this summer that neither CMHC nor Statistics Canada seems to be tracking the crisis. Nor are we certain that the renovators themselves are tracking their work, which is particularly disturbing in view of some doubt expressed as to the efficacy of these repairs in at least two technical papers we've seen so far. (See our homepage for titles and links.

What we like:

To avoid being duped in a leaky condo re-sale, go to Re-Sale of Leaky Condos: Did the Buyer Know?, Updated August 2003, the first-rate study by former realtor Nancy Bain, which quotes Homeowner Protection Office (HPO) figures from 2002, when it was estimated that there were 65,000 leaky condos here, 50,000 of which had been identified. The report also points to the judgment from 2000 in Sask v. Brooke , in which the court says quite clearly that a B.C. seller’s disclosure shouldn't be relied on even when he’s the chairman of the strata council. Welcome to the B.C. real estate market. Visit our Condo Law FAQs forum for a more detailed review of this decision and its implications for buyers.

The report’s stats look very much like the old Barrett Commission figures still being bandied about despite numerous challenges to their accuracy. It’s not clear whether these figures take into account the leaky high-rise crisis now increasingly in evidence or the substandard owner-built, single-family homes reported by HPO in 2000. We prefer a more transparent calculation based on building permits in line with the e-mail posted at our Watchdog Forum from Vancouver’s chief building official. We're still trying to get the same information from other municipalities.

Nevertheless, numbers aside, we’re delighted with this very revealing report, which shows very clearly where legislative changes are required to protect consumers, who still discover to their surprise that they’ve purchased defective units even after competent, detailed inspections.

What we didn't like:

We are also impressed with CMHC’s Condominium Buyer’s Guide, although it doesn’t explain as clearly as it could that B.C. has no mandatory reserve fund studies or technical audits. Our legislation, for reasons known only to the drafters, omits these essential features, letting the construction industry off the hook and leaving the whole maintenance/renewal scheme up to inexpert consumers.

This is particularly irksome in view of the conclusions drawn in CMHC’s 2001 Building Failures Study, Technical Series 01-140, which recommends both professional audits and inspections at various intervals. Curiously, the Canadian Standards Association in S478-95 Guideline on Durability in Buildings Structures (Design) said the same thing way back in 1995, though we see no mention of this publication at the Buying, Maintaining, Renovating link, which is puzzling. (Click on our Condo Life Cycles forum to check for responses to our many queries regarding housing construction standards, though they've been very slow in coming).

CMHC’s buyer’s guide would be less misleading if it provided a chart listing statutory maintenance requirements for each province, including case studies of well-run complexes. Although the guide does a fair job of explaining audits and reserve studies, it doesn't go far enough to warn potential purchasers of the risk when buying into a corporation that doesn’t have these features firmly in place. And although we find the reality-based focus on repair and renewal a refreshing contrast to local real estate ad copy, which utterly ignores the issue (so far with impunity), we’re concerned about all this high-priced maintenance and what it says about the quality of condo construction generally.

Condo maintenance, particularly when all decisions must yield to an inexpert majority, seems to us a very onerous burden. The two key questions, in our view, are as follows:

[Guest]

Best Practice Guides for Wood-Frame Envelopes:

Yes, there is also the best practice guide, Wood-Frame Envelopes in the Coastal Climate of British Columbia, Revised 2001, but only highlights are listed at CMHC's website. They will sell it to you at the Order Desk for a hefty $89, but read it for free at Vancouver Public Library's Central Branch, where it's held in reserve on the Third Floor.

[Editor]

Desperately seeking Luis de Miguel:

[Editor]

CMHC's Highrise Discussion Board:

[Editor]

Re-Sale of Leaky Condos report now available online:

[Guest]

A note of thanks: