Gregory Carpenter

 Thank you Michelle Kelly......for your OUTSTANDING service and support during our frustrating and challenging journey with our Board. You were always right there when we needed your professional input and expertise. We even noted some of your response emails to us were sent after hours and even on a Sunday....now that is dedication and service!! Also, your interpretations of the CondominiumI Act related to our issues, were always reassuring when we interacted with our Board. We could not have travelled this journey without having you on our team. Thank you Michelle. Without hesitation, we recommend Michelle Kelly’s professional services to one and all. Sheila Parsonage

 Michelle Kelly represented us while we bought our first home. She did an incredible job explaining to us the process and guiding us every step of the way. Her expert knowledge of the condo law and updates to the condominium act were extremely useful during the process. Even in dealing with the condo corporation after the purchase was made. As a new condo owner, I also frequently read her condo blog to stay up-to-date on the latest changes and things that might impact me. I would recommend her very professional service to anyone looking for the latest in condo knowledge.

 I am the president of a condo board (WCC84). We have received legal advise from Michelle Kelly several times during the last 5 years. Michelle has always been very professional & precise in the information she has given us. Her extensive knowledge of condo law including the latest changes to the law has been invaluable to us.

 Hm. So I just read Roger Smith's comments here. Be warned! They are defamatory. By which I mean they appear to be scandalously untrue and I wouldn't blame Michelle if she sued him over them. In my experience (as a more senior practitioner in this field), Michelle's knowledge of condominium law is highly competent. The disagreement of some unit owners over proposed by-laws (generally representative of the condominium board's views and intentions, not the lawyer's, anyway) is not even close to a reasonable or well-grounded basis for assessing a lawyer's skills or intelligence. Mr. Smith also makes spurious, ill-willed and untrue allegations about the reason for the dissolution of Sutherland Kelly, of which I have direct personal knowledge. He is wrong. But he alleges that many of Michelle's clients agree with him about this matter. Unless he can prove that by production of such clients' affirmed testimonies, his statement appears to me to be pure and obvious libel. I also know Michelle's current employer is no fool, and does not suffer fools; just as I believe Michelle ought not to suffer the unkind and abusive allegations of Mr. Smith.