Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
|
|
| (36 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Category:Landlord Tenant]]
| |
|
| |
|
| ==[Furr v. Courtland Mews Cooperative Housing Inc., 2020 ONSC 1175 (CanLII)]==
| |
|
| |
| '''Serious Impairment of Safety
| |
|
| |
| [13] Section 94.2(1) of the RTA provides that a cooperative may give a member notice of termination of occupancy in enumerated circumstances. The relevant circumstance here involves an act or omission of a member which “seriously impairs or has seriously impaired the safety of any person”.
| |
|
| |
| [14] The appellant has cited a number of Court and Board decisions which attempt to flesh out the context, purpose and meaning of this provision. Statements of this context, purpose and meaning include the following:
| |
|
| |
| ::(i) the notice period under this provision is short and the statute does not allow for a cure period;
| |
|
| |
| ::(ii) the issuance of an eviction notice has serious consequences;
| |
|
| |
| ::(iii) to put someone out of their home calls for clear and compelling circumstances;
| |
|
| |
| ::(iv) eviction is a limited remedy of last resort, reserved for the most serious conduct;
| |
|
| |
| ::(v) verbal harassment and threats alone rarely constitute a serious impairment of safety;
| |
|
| |
| ::(vi) a clear intention to act on threats must be shown; and
| |
|
| |
| ::(vii) the use of the word “serious” in s. 94.2(1) implies conduct which is “weighty, grave or momentous.”
| |
|
| |
| [15] In the Vice-Chair’s reasons, he concluded that the conduct of the appellant had seriously impaired the safety of Ms. Pringle. He said:
| |
|
| |
| ::The Co-op Member argued that he did not impair AP’s safety because he did not assault her and that harassment and threats alone do not constitute impairment [of] safety. I disagree. There are many instances where one may seriously impair the safety of a person without physically assaulting the person… Laying siege to the Co-op office in a rage is not just harassment. The Co-op Member intended to seize the membership list because he believed he was entitled to it. Given the Co-op member’s animosity towards AP, the latter had good reason to fear the worst. The co-op member’s subsequent conduct also shows that AP had good reason to fear for her safety.
| |
Latest revision as of 03:04, 31 July 2020
