Notice Law - N7 (Serious Impairment of Safety)

From Riverview Legal Group
Revision as of 21:24, 19 March 2020 by Sharvey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "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...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


[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.