Mental Health (LTB)

TSL-02327-19 (Re), 2019 CanLII 87558 (ON LTB)

4. The Landlord is a not-for-profit housing provider that provides affordable housing. The Landlord has partnerships with many agencies who serve different needs communities. These agencies refer their clients to the Landlord to live in the residential complex. The tenancy at issue arose from a partnership between the Landlord and a community agency that provides mental health supports to the Tenant.

5. The residential complex has “regular floors” and “safety floors”. The difference is that safety floors (i.e. floors 4 and 7) are reserved for residents who have a history of trauma and abuse. There are special expectations of residents of these floors, including that they are quiet, they do not have frequent guests and their guests are escorted in and out of the building. These expectations are meant to protect the residents’ sense of security on these floors.

6. The tenancy started in November, 2017. The Tenant lives on the 7th floor of the building, which is a safety floor.

7. Due to the Tenant’s pattern of disturbing behaviour, the Landlord served two N5 Notices of Termination upon the Tenant alleging substantial interference under section 64 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the “Act”). At the hearing, the Landlord’s witnesses confirmed that the Tenant voided the first N5 Notice pursuant to section 64(3) of the Act. Therefore, in this order I only consider the allegations in the section N5 Notice, which has a termination date of January 3, 2019.

Tenant has created substantial interferences

8. Based on the Landlord’s uncontested evidence, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Tenant has substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment or lawful right, interest or privilege of the Landlord or another tenant by:

• Creating excessive noise in the rental unit and in the hallway of the 7th floor at all hours of the night by screaming, yelling and slamming walls and doors.

• Knocking on other tenants’ doors late at night and early in the morning looking for drugs and cigarettes.

• Having a guest enter the residential complex and attend her unit unescorted in the middle of the night.

• Forcing her way into another tenant’s unit without permission. The other tenant lives on the fourth floor, which is also a safety floor.

9. The Landlord’s witnesses testified that the Tenant’s behaviour has had a significant impact on other residents by making them feel scared, anxious, triggering symptoms of their own mental health issues and past traumatic experiences and making it difficult for residents to cope.

19. Finally, I am satisfied that the Landlord will experience undue hardship (through its residents) if the tenancy continues. Although it is clear that the Tenant suffers from mental health issues, her long-standing disruptive behaviour has and continues to negatively impact the mental health and reasonable enjoyment of other residents. It would not be fair or appropriate to expect the Landlord to provide endless accommodation for the Tenant’s disturbing behaviour when it profoundly affects the health and well-being of other residents who are also vulnerable and require accommodation.

SOL-07404-10 (Re), 2010 CanLII 65631 (ON LTB)

1. The Tenant is an admitted hoarder whose unit is filled waist high with clothes, food electronics, toys, trash and dirt. The things stored in the unit and the manner of the clutter make the unit a health and fire hazard. The unit emits an odour which is evident from the common area leading to the Tenant’s unit.

Evidence and submissions:

1. The Tenant resides in a unit provided to him under the auspices of the Brantford Community Mental Health department. The Department rents five units in the residential complex and allocates them to people with mental health issues and or who they support or assist under the CMHA program.

3. The Tenant admits that he has a hoarding problem. The Tenant testified that he is trying to get into a program with the St. Joseph Mental Health hospital that will enable him to get appropriate counselling and treatment to overcome the hoarding problem.

5. The Landlord is sceptical that the Tenant will get into the program at St. Joseph’s Mental Health hospital as there is a long waiting list and or that it is unlikely that the Tenant has been placed on the list as at the date of hearing this application.

6. The Landlord maintains that even if the Tenant does get into the program, it is unlikely that the Tenant would benefit from it to an extent that he overcomes the problem altogether or within a short period of time. The Landlord submitted to the Board a Hoarding Fact Sheet which contains an extract from a notable writer on compulsive hoarding (Dr. R. O. F Ph.D., Smith College, North Hampton, Mass.). The fact sheet states, among other things, that “Hoarding interventions are often complicated, costly and time consuming”.

7. The Landlord maintains that they have tried to help the Tenant by providing him with supportive interventions which include working with the Assertive Community Treatment Team (ACT) but to no avail as either the Tenant refuses to cooperate by denying that he is hoarding unnecessary “things”; that his “hoarding” is a problem that affects other people; or by refusing help from his mental health support workers to clean up the unit.

9. I find that the Tenant has a hoarding problem and that his conduct substantially interferes with the Landlord’s and the other tenants’ reasonable enjoyment of the residential complex and with the Landlord’s lawful right, privilege or interest.

10. According to the fact sheet submitted by the Landlord, hoarding is a legal, public and safety issue. Hoarding situations result in recurring unsafe conditions for both the individual and those living in close proximity to the affective persons. The literature on the subject of hoarding notes that hoarding creates impaired activities of daily living; unhealthy living conditions and unsafe living conditions.

12. The Tenant indicated at the hearing that the likelihood of losing his home has made him to be proactive in improving his living conditions. As a result, the Tenant is actively pursing treatment at St. Joseph’s hospital which will involve “one on one” counselling and interventions so as to get him to let go of the excessive “things” he has accumulated or tends to accumulate. The Tenant requested that he be allowed to work with the Landlord who should advise him on what he should get rid of in order to clean up and or de-clutter the unit. The Tenant made what appeared to me to be a sincere undertaking to cooperate with the Landlord.

TSL-73492-16 (Re), 2016 CanLII 88385 (ON LTB)

3. The Tenant requested a review of the Board’s order TSL-73492-16, issued June 9, 2016 on the basis that:

o There are human rights issues and other issues the Board should have considered in its order pursuant to section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the “Act”). I took this to mean that the Tenant was claiming that there were serious errors in the June 7th hearing and/or in the order that was issued on June 9th because these issues were not considered.

26. Pursuant to section 83 of the Act, when hearing an application for eviction and termination of the tenancy, the Board must consider any circumstances that could favour relief from eviction.

27. The Tenant’s legal representative argued that the Board, in making its decision, should consider the Tenant’s mental health condition as well as the Landlord’s failure to accommodate that condition. LM testified on behalf of the Tenant and provided evidence in support of the Tenant’s section 83 issues.

31. The parties did not dispute that the Tenant suffers from schizophrenia. Therefore I find that he falls within the protected ground of disability under subsection 2(1) of the Human Rights Code. The Tenant’s legal representative argued that the Landlord has known about the Tenant’s mental health condition since at least May 26, 2016 and has failed to accommodate him. In her testimony, KTW stated that at this hearing she became aware of a letter from a community health centre, dated May 26, 2016 stating that the Tenant suffers from schizophrenia and that heat in the rental unit triggers his illness. The letter also requests that the Landlord find a means for controlling the temperature in the unit “so that he make full use of his unit and help maintain his mental health”. KTW testified that she did not know if the Landlord’s other staff became aware of this letter before her. There was no evidence before me that the Landlord knew about the Tenant’s disability before May 26, 2016.

32. There was no evidence before me that the Landlord discriminated against the Tenant by seeking to evict him for seriously impairing LG’s safety, but I take the arguments of the Tenant’s legal representative to mean that by requesting eviction the Landlord is discriminating against the Tenant because the Landlord has not explored alternatives to eviction. I do not find the evidence supports a finding of discrimination for this reason because: 1) there was no evidence before me that the Landlord knew about the Tenant’s mental health condition prior to filing the application and/or prior to the hearings; and 2) the letters from the community legal clinic only request accommodation with respect to regulating the temperature in the Tenant’s unit and they do not reference any of the incidents or behaviour that form the basis of the Landlord’s application, or request any other form of accommodation relating to the Tenant’s disability.

33. Accordingly, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Landlord has discriminated against the Tenant by requesting eviction in its application and/or that the Landlord has failed to accommodate the Tenant by requesting eviction.

TNL-10807 (Re), 2009 CanLII 92624 (ON LTB)

2. On November 30, 2007, the Tenant was charged with two counts of luring a child, attempt sexual touching, attempt exposure to a child, weapons dangerous and carry concealed weapon. The charges stemmed from an online undercover investigation; the Tenant had several sexually related conversations with an undercover police officer posing as a 13 year old girl. The Tenant was denied bail. On April 7, 2008, he pleaded guilty to 2 charges of luring a child (by means of a computer) and 1 count of attempt to expose his genitals to a minor. The Tenant for given a 4 months jail sentence and 18 months probation. He was released from custody at the end of June and is on probation until the end of December 2009.

4. The Tenant has been reporting to a probation officer once every three weeks. He has been seeing a therapist physician since October 2008, twice a month. He completed a 16-week mandatory group therapy from November 2008 to March 2009. He has also been seeing a social worker once a week.

The issue in this case is not whether the Tenant has committed an illegal act; the Tenant has readily admitted to having done so. The issue is whether the Tenant is entitled to relief from eviction pursuant to section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. I made the following findings concerning this issue:

2. The Tenant has shown remorse for his illegal act. He pleaded guilty to the charges and served his sentence. He has been fully compliant with the conditions of the probation order and he has been actively involved in rehabilitation and treatment programs.

The Tenant was referred by his psychiatrist to see an occupational health physician, who states in a report dated October 27, 2009 that the Tenant “is presently not to be suffering from a major mental illness” and he “has been sensitized to his behaviours and will not repeat them again.” The doctor further states in the report that “any dislocation of residence would add to an instability and it is not recommended.” The Tenant’s mental health support worker states in a report dated September 1, 2009 that the Tenant “has demonstrated his good behaviour in the past year and willingness to get help.” The social worker further states that the Tenant “has been living at his apartment for 15 years and eviction from his place of residence would be devastating to his mental health and would possibly trigger another depressive episode.”

Based on the evidence received, I find that it would be detrimental to the Tenant’s mental health and rehabilitation if the Tenant is to be evicted from his rental unit, which has been his stable living environment for 15 years.