Ms. Dimakas:
I am concerned by the inaccurate and dismissive tone of your recent communication.
First, the ruling you are referring to is currently under appeal. It is therefore inappropriate to rely on it as if it were final or determinative. One judge is not the final authority on these matters. I would refer you to the Condominium Authority Tribunal’s prior decision involving the corporation, which contains strongly worded and critical findings regarding the corporation’s conduct, and in which the Tribunal awarded the highest damages amounts in its history. I would further refer you to the findings of Justice McArthur.
Second, I have also filed a judicial complaint. While I am realistic about the challenges inherent in self-regulated professions, I will continue to pursue all available avenues to ensure that what occurred in my case is properly scrutinized and will not happen to other residents in the future.
Third, I am a person with a disability, specifically an anxiety disorder. The decision you reference failed to meaningfully consider my communication in the context of that disability, or the significant stressors I was experiencing at the time, including a cancer diagnosis and two surgeries. Any attempt to characterize my conduct without that context is incomplete and misleading.
Finally, the characterization of my dog as “merely an ESA,” as reflected in Selkirk’s comments, is unsupported and inaccurate. No tribunal has made such a finding, and there is no public record to that effect. I would ask that such statements not be repeated.
Given the tone and content of your communications, I will not be engaging in further direct correspondence with you. Any further communications from you will not receive a reply. It is apparent that a respectful and constructive exchange is not possible.
Respectfully,
Claudia Baha
