Scott Gilbert, current candidate for Mayor of Vancouver.

Dear Sequel Owners,

My name is Scott Gilbert. I was formerly contracted to work as Sequel's building manager. I am writing because I believe owners have not received a complete account of how my employment status, contract termination, housing and related disputes have been handled. There are also questions about whether owners were properly notified about the notice of claim asking Tori and me to pay for a series of things related to the loading bay gate, or that I remain under investigation to this day — a fact FSR has repeatedly cited to justify withholding documents I believe I would otherwise be entitled to.

As you will see in the analysis by ChatGPT, there is a good argument that I remain employed to this day due to the way the attempt to remove me was handled. If a court were to agree, that carries a potential liability of up to $2.5 million for the strata. That is serious enough to warrant your immediate attention, and to test what you have been told against the underlying records. I would like to resolve matters out of court, and help at least Tori find housing. If we cannot accomplish these things, then I will respond to the notice of claim the strata issued and a court will make the final decision.

To recap:

At a special general meeting that I petitioned owners to hold, owners approved a resolution concerning whether my working relationship with the strata was to be treated as employment rather than independent contracting. My understanding is that the resolution directed the strata to recognize me as an employee, and that the owners who voted on it understood it the same way at the time.

Council did not implement the resolution in that manner. Instead, it relied on a legal opinion obtained the day before the meeting. Because that opinion preceded the final discussion and vote, I do not believe it addressed the resolution as it was ultimately presented and approved — yet I believe it has since been presented to owners and the CRA as though it did.

At a later meeting, owners were asked to reverse the earlier resolution. I was not given an opportunity to address that meeting. In my view, the attempt to reverse it is itself an acknowledgement that the original resolution was binding. The problem is that if the original motion effectively made me an employee, reversing a motion does not terminate an employee under employment standards legislation. That is what needs to be sorted out. Without a good-faith meeting and a fair negotiation process, I will have no choice but to ask a court to do it for us. The ChatGPT analysis of how that might go is provided for owners to consider because it differs materially from the position council has taken, and I believe owners should not rely on any single account — including mine — without checking it against the records. Questions a court would look at:

• what the first resolution legally accomplished;
• whether council properly implemented the owners' direction;
• why a second resolution was considered necessary;
• what advice council relied upon at each stage; and
• whether owners received all material information before voting.

I am not asking owners to accept my conclusions without evidence. I am asking for an independent, evidence-based review of the relevant records, including:

• The wording, notices, voting results and minutes for both special general meetings.
• My contract, payment, payroll and worker-classification records.
• Correspondence concerning the proposed termination of my role.
• The legal advice relied upon by council, to the extent it can lawfully be disclosed to owners — and an explanation of why a legal opinion relied upon was dated one day before the meeting at which owners themselves voted, rather than after.
• Why owners were not notified at an AGM of the plan to terminate the contract, and why the notice was sent out within hours of the AGM ending, at a time when an entirely new council was in office.
• Records concerning the loading-bay gate claim and how the gate replacement or repair was funded.
• Records of money spent investigating me after my work at Sequel was last paid.
• The specific legal basis for withholding any records requested by me or by an owner acting on my behalf.

I am also concerned that statements posted or permitted on the building's Facebook page have presented an incomplete and damaging account of me and Tori. Rather than continue an argument through social media, I want the disputed statements assessed against the underlying documents, in a mature, transparent and respectful way.

These events have caused serious financial and personal consequences for both Tori and myself. The classification of my work contributed to substantial CRA reassessments, interest and penalties arising from the work I did. Although the compensation was limited, I worked extremely hard and still consider it one of the most meaningful jobs I have held.

Tori and I also lost our housing at Sequel in circumstances we continue to dispute. I now live in a vehicle, and Tori is sleeping outside on the pavement across from Sequel, as we have been for several years since being evicted — an eviction we believe was carried out in bad faith, and one we believe the landlord felt pressure from the strata to carry out. Tori and I remain on cordial terms and continue to share responsibility for our two dogs, but we no longer live together.

I created Sequel138.ca to organize relevant records and explain my position. I would prefer for the website to become unnecessary because owners have received the relevant information and the dispute has been resolved fairly.

I am asking council to place the following proposals before the owners:

• An owner meeting at which I am permitted to make a time-limited presentation and answer owners' questions.
• Disclosure of the relevant records, subject to legitimate privilege and privacy restrictions, with the specific basis for each withheld or redacted document clearly identified.
• An independent legal review by a lawyer who did not advise council on the earlier decisions and who has no ties to FSR.
• Mediation aimed at resolving the employment, housing, records and related disputes before additional litigation expenses are incurred.
• A review of insurance and indemnity issues so owners understand whether any potential exposure may be covered or recoverable from an insurer, management company or another responsible party in relation to the loading bay gate and other matters.

I recognize that many owners had no direct role in these decisions and may be unable to absorb an unexpected financial burden. My objective is not to punish those owners. It is to have the relevant facts examined openly and to pursue a fair resolution before the potential liability increases further or the matter goes to court.

I am now running for Mayor of Vancouver. My experiences working and living in the Downtown Eastside — including my time at Sequel — form part of my public history. I would prefer to describe Sequel as a community that confronted a difficult dispute transparently, treated formerly homeless residents with dignity and helped reach a constructive solution. Transforming the Downtown Eastside into a place with incentivized detox facilities paired with employment and housing programs is central to my platform — a message I believe owners would welcome. I will be asked about my role at Sequel, and since I will have nomination papers signed tomorrow (July 20), this matter has become urgent for owners to consider.

With my run for Mayor, it is likely that individuals connected to Sequel will be approached by — or tempted to approach — the media about my work here. I have no way to prevent that, and I do not want to hide from it. But owners should first have the opportunity to decide how they collectively want the building to present these matters, so that no single person's uncoordinated statements end up hurting all owners. I encourage owners to begin now on identifying how to handle media inquiries, so we can all present as well as possible rather than appear as a feuding, quarrelsome group that cannot work things out. Bad press can hurt my campaign, and it could also harm the building's reputation — neither serves anyone's interests. That is part of why I am asking for a meeting now: to try to avert harm to anyone's interests before my campaign reaches the media, which is likely to happen within the next few days to a month.

Any public account I give will be based on verifiable records. I will correct any factual error that is identified with supporting evidence, and I ask council and other participants to apply the same standard.

Please provide a written response by August 3, 2026 confirming whether council will circulate this request to all owners, arrange an owner meeting and participate in mediation.

Sincerely,
Scott Gilbert
greatscott@draintheswamp.ca
DrainTheSwamp.ca