Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
CAFCOR Forum
_GEN_GOTOBOTTOM Post Reply
TOPIC:
#19260
EVICTION order UPHELD : 85 year old cancer survivor's disruptions justified eviction & big costs ? 2021/08/20 19:21  
So some folks think that recurrent verbal abuse can't get an 85 year old cancer survivor evicted from a retirement home ?

Well here's a lesson from the same sorta universeS ( plural ) that tend to mute or even gag advice-giving or kvetching by stakeholders. Sometimes gotta watch un-welcomeD advice, even if it's valid, respectful & maybe in concert with that of other stakeholders . . .

A Divisional Court panel has upheld the procedural fairness of turfing a now 85 year old tenant from a Toronto retirement community.

Emerging from COVID postponement the panel upholds L&T Landlord & Tenant Board 2020 eviction Order for alleged abuse of staff verbally & by e-mail at Hazelton Place Retirement Community, a workplace. Whether or not supported, "poisoned" workplaces are themselves threats to staff welfare & raise serious legal issues. Other residents can be targets of abuse.

The tenant ( undergoing expulsion ) had appealed his L&T Board Eviction Order in early September 2020. The reported cancer survivor claims his eviction is reprisal for complaining to regulators.

But the final of his pair of N5 Eviction Notices ( for cause ) is centrally ruled to have emerged from a process that was procedurally fair & correct in law.

The adjudicator had ruled the appellant’s conduct “substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the premises in a manner that justified eviction”. Drastic or not in impact, it gets confirmed fair & procedurally appropriate even with COVID-19 complications.

The panel ordered the appellant to vacate in 90 days & pay a whopping $ 15 K costs of the Retirement Residence.

xcrpt :

“ . . . [27] In any event, the moratorium on evictions had ended by the time the LTB made its decision and as such, it was within the LTB’s power to order the eviction.

The LTB considered COVID-19 in coming to its decision and appropriately postponed the eviction to give Mr. XXX sufficient time to find new accommodations.

The LTB gave Mr. XXX 60 days to leave his apartment; by virtue of the delay associated with this appeal, Mr. XXX has had an additional 9 months and 13 days of occupancy.

He will now have an additional 90 days, meaning he will have had over one year to secure accommodations since the original LTB Order.” - unquote


Weiss v. 3501973 Canada Inc., 2021 ONSC 5547 issued Aug 16/21 https://canlii.ca/t/jhlg7
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster