Relief from Eviction (Human Rights): Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
Line 16: Line 16:


[4]          The respondent responded to the noted conduct by filing an application with the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) seeking to evict the applicant. The hearing for eviction of the applicant was held at the LTB on November 16 and December 13, 2016.  <b><u>The adjudicator found that the respondent had established grounds for termination of the tenancy. However, the January 13, 2017 eviction order granted conditional relief from eviction due to the applicant’s mental health issues.</b></u> One condition was that the applicant refrain from collecting and/or displaying syringes on the grounds of the complex.
[4]          The respondent responded to the noted conduct by filing an application with the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) seeking to evict the applicant. The hearing for eviction of the applicant was held at the LTB on November 16 and December 13, 2016.  <b><u>The adjudicator found that the respondent had established grounds for termination of the tenancy. However, the January 13, 2017 eviction order granted conditional relief from eviction due to the applicant’s mental health issues.</b></u> One condition was that the applicant refrain from collecting and/or displaying syringes on the grounds of the complex.
==SOL-93277-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88992 (ON LTB)<ref name="SOL-93277-18"/>==
2.      I find that the Tenants have substantially interfered with the Landlords’ and other tenants’ reasonable enjoyment and lawful rights. I find however that there are factors, including human rights considerations, which justify discretionary relief from eviction.
(...)
20.  <b><u>I find that the Tenants’ son’s developmental challenges arising from his autism, trigger the Landlords’ duty to accommodate under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “<i>Code</i>”).</b></u>  The Landlords did not provide any evidence of any efforts to accommodate the Tenants’ son’s condition.  The Landlords did not provide evidence of any meaningful or constructive response to the Tenants’ email dated May 24, 2018, earnestly seeking their accommodation.
(...)
28.  With respect to the issue of noise, I have considered all of the disclosed circumstances in accordance with subsection 83(2) of the <i>Residential Tenancies Act,</i> 2006 (the 'Act'), and in particular, the Landlords’ failure to accommodate.  <b><u>I find that it would not be unfair to grant relief from eviction pursuant to subsection 83(1) of the Act.</b></u>


==References==
==References==
Line 23: Line 35:
<ref name="Grenier">
<ref name="Grenier">
<i>Grenier v. Kitchener Housing Inc.,</i> 2017 HRTO 753 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/h4m20>, retrieved on 2022-06-11</ref>
<i>Grenier v. Kitchener Housing Inc.,</i> 2017 HRTO 753 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/h4m20>, retrieved on 2022-06-11</ref>
<ref name="SOL-93277-18">
SOL-93277-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88992 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/hv845>, retrieved on 2022-06-11</ref>

Revision as of 18:25, 11 June 2022


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-11-26
CLNP Page ID: 1928
Page Categories: Human Rights, Human Rights (LTB)
Citation: Relief from Eviction (Human Rights), CLNP 1928, <7S>, retrieved on 2024-11-26
Editor: MKent
Last Updated: 2022/06/11

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today


Burns v. David B. Archer Co-operative Inc., 2018 HRTO 1850 (CanLII)[1]

[5] The respondents submit that in TSC-01079-16, issued on November 3, 2017 (“TSC-01079-16”), at paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 the LTB considered evidence pertaining to the applicant’s medical issues, and heard submissions on the respondents’ duty to accommodate. Her legal counsel at her LTB hearing made submissions in which he referenced the Code. The evidence considered included details pertaining to the applicant’s health issues and how they related to her ability to pay her regular housing charges. The LTB considered the applicant’s submissions and granted her relief from eviction; she was given a conditional order. It directed her to make certain payments on a periodic basis. However, in the event that she breached that order, the Respondent Co-op could apply to the LTB for an order in which it sought to evict her given her failure to comply.

[6] The applicant did not comply with the conditions in order TSC-01079-16. The Respondent Co-op filed an Application at the LTB in which it sought to evict the applicant as she had failed to make one of the payments specified in the order. In TSC-01707-14, issued on January 18, 2018 (“TSC-01707-14”), the LTB granted the application, and ordered the applicant to vacate the member unit. The applicant filed a motion to set aside order TSC-01707-14. In TSC-01707-18-SA, issued on April 5, 2018 (“TSC-01707-18-SA”), the LTB set aside order TSC-01707-14. Specifically, the LTB considered the applicant’s personal circumstances including her disability, and family issues, and ability to pay her housing charges. The LTB ordered that the payment plan in TSC-01079-16 be restored. Consequently, the applicant was granted relief from eviction and is entitled to remain in her housing.

Grenier v. Kitchener Housing Inc., 2017 HRTO 753 (CanLII)[2]

[4] The respondent responded to the noted conduct by filing an application with the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) seeking to evict the applicant. The hearing for eviction of the applicant was held at the LTB on November 16 and December 13, 2016. The adjudicator found that the respondent had established grounds for termination of the tenancy. However, the January 13, 2017 eviction order granted conditional relief from eviction due to the applicant’s mental health issues. One condition was that the applicant refrain from collecting and/or displaying syringes on the grounds of the complex.

SOL-93277-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88992 (ON LTB)[3]

2. I find that the Tenants have substantially interfered with the Landlords’ and other tenants’ reasonable enjoyment and lawful rights. I find however that there are factors, including human rights considerations, which justify discretionary relief from eviction.

(...)

20. I find that the Tenants’ son’s developmental challenges arising from his autism, trigger the Landlords’ duty to accommodate under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”). The Landlords did not provide any evidence of any efforts to accommodate the Tenants’ son’s condition. The Landlords did not provide evidence of any meaningful or constructive response to the Tenants’ email dated May 24, 2018, earnestly seeking their accommodation.

(...)

28. With respect to the issue of noise, I have considered all of the disclosed circumstances in accordance with subsection 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the 'Act'), and in particular, the Landlords’ failure to accommodate. I find that it would not be unfair to grant relief from eviction pursuant to subsection 83(1) of the Act.

References

[1] [2] [3]

  1. 1.0 1.1 Burns v. David B. Archer Co-operative Inc., 2018 HRTO 1850 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/hwrcg>, retrieved on 2022-06-11
  2. 2.0 2.1 Grenier v. Kitchener Housing Inc., 2017 HRTO 753 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/h4m20>, retrieved on 2022-06-11
  3. 3.0 3.1 SOL-93277-18 (Re), 2018 CanLII 88992 (ON LTB), <https://canlii.ca/t/hv845>, retrieved on 2022-06-11