Unlawful Trespass Notice (Remedy)
Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
---|---|
Date Retrieved: | 2024-11-24 |
CLNP Page ID: | 2414 |
Page Categories: | [Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)], [Human Rights] |
Citation: | Unlawful Trespass Notice (Remedy), CLNP 2414, <https://rvt.link/dk>, retrieved on 2024-11-24 |
Editor: | Sharvey |
Last Updated: | 2024/09/24 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today
Ramnarine-Smith v. Havcare Investments Inc., 2018 HRTO 878 (CanLII)[1]
[5] At the hearing, I heard the evidence of both applicants as well as D.R.S and K.W. Each of the witnesses adopted their witness statements as their evidence subject to questions from counsel for the applicants and the Tribunal. Ms. Ramnarine-Smith amended her witness statement in paragraph 6 where it states that Mr. Smith was out of the apartment following a trespass order for three days to state that her father was out of the unit for five or six weeks.
...
[28] On January 15, 2016, the respondents caused a Trespass Notice to be issued against Mr. Smith based on the entirely false allegation by the respondents that his daughter did not want him in the unit.
[29] On the day of the incident, Mr. Smith had been out walking his dogs. He returned from the walk to find the personal respondent and an officer from the Toronto Police Service waiting for him. The personal respondent pointed him out to the officer and told the officer that Mr. Smith was a trespasser. The personal respondent told the officer that Ms. Ramnarine-Smith had told her that she wanted Mr. Smith out of their apartment. According to both applicants, none of this was true. Ms. Ramnarine-Smith denied that she ever told the personal respondent that her father was a trespasser and not wanted in their home. She also offered that if her father left her, she would have been homeless because he paid the rent. Ms. Ramnarine-Smith wrote a note to this effect for the police but this seemed to have had no impact on what happened to her father.
[30] The police officer attempted to hand Mr. Smith a Trespass Notice that had been handwritten by the personal respondent, but his hands were full so he could not take it. Mr. Smith did not understand what was happening and could not understand what was being said to him because of the noise of the dogs who were barking, the personal respondent’s yelling, and his hearing loss. Mr. Smith and the police officer went to his apartment. The police office became frustrated with the applicant and threatened him at one point with pepper spray. According to Mr. Smith, the police officer left the unit and went to speak to the superintendent/personal respondent. The officer did not give Mr. Smith the Trespass Notice that day and did not return.
[31] The police returned on January 18, 2016 to enforce the Trespass Notice. Ms. Ramnarine-Smith arrived before her father had been escorted out of the building and attempted to explain to the police that her father was a guest and that she did not want him to leave. The police explained that they could not withdraw a “ticket” once issued and accordingly Mr. Smith was required to leave the unit. He was given a short period of time to shower and gather a few things and was escorted out.
[32] Because Mr. Smith had nowhere to go he spent his first night on the subway. He testified that he was unable to find a washroom and was incontinent by urine and had to spend many hours in soaked clothing overnight. He testified that he spent two or three nights in a shelter, something he had never had to do before this incident. Ms. Ramnarine-Smith spoke with D.R.S., his former spouse, and arranged for her father to move in with his former spouse for a period of time before he was able to return to his home after the Trespass Notice was lifted.
[33] Mr. Smith had other difficulties taking care of himself during this time. When he was escorted out, he forgot to take any food and had no idea where to get food. He testified that he went hungry for a few days until his daughter was able to find him shelters and other facilities where he could get a meal. At other times, he would meet his daughter off site and receive food from her.
[34] The Trespass Notice was posted in the lobby of the building with Mr. Smith’s name in large letters across the top of the document.
[35] Mr. Smith testified at the hearing that this incident made him feel like a criminal. He testified that on a couple of occasions, he snuck in to retrieve personal items but otherwise he was kept from his home for 5 to 6 weeks.
[36] For Ms. Ramnarine-Smith, the eviction of her father from their home was very distressing. She did not feel comfortable being alone. She stayed with K.W. and her mother for periods of time while her father was subject to the Trespass Notice. The housing allowance which paid the rent was put in jeopardy.
[37] Ms. Ramnarine-Smith filed a T2 application at the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) in response to the trespass notice. The application asked that Mr. Smith be allowed to return to the building and also that the superintendents end the harassment of her father and stop “making fun of his disabilities.” On February 12, 2016, the LTB made an Interim Order stating that, until the case was resolved, Ms. Ramnarine-Smith and anyone whom she allowed into the building had a right to be present on the premises.
...
[74] I find therefore that Mr. Smith is entitled to an award of $40,000 in compensation for damages to his dignity, feelings and self-respect. In coming to this conclusion, I have considered the objective circumstances of being denied housing, of then being routinely and repeatedly abused by the respondents and their employees for a period of almost 12 months. I have also considered the effect on him of being routinely humiliated in front of his daughter and his being forced again to rely on the good will of his former spouse in securing the apartment in the first place. Of particular importance is the fact that the respondents were successful for a time in depriving Mr. Smith of his home. Again he was required to rely on his former spouse for housing for a period of time. I have also considered that the behaviour of the respondents was mirrored by some tenants who I have found were acting at the instance of the respondents and their employees. While it is possible that not all of the abuse by other tenants can be attributed to the respondents, some it clearly can. The fact is, the respondents created a significantly poisoned home environment for Mr. Smith and I have considered the fact that this vulnerable man was forced to find new housing for himself, his daughter and soon-to-arrive granddaughter.
[75] I find that Ms. Ramnarine-Smith is entitled to an award of $20,000 in compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect. Ms. Ramnarine-Smith experienced some of the same discrimination as her father did. She was referred to as her father’s girlfriend on more than one occasion by B. and an unknown tenant. More directly, however, was the fact that for the much of the time she resided in the respondents’ building her housing was under threat. This threat became quite concrete when her father was forced out of his home by the Trespass Notice triggered by a lie of the personal respondent’s; by the application to evict filed by the respondents at the LTB; and by the false claims made to the ODSP that the rent was not being paid. I have also considered the inappropriate and possibly illegal search of her apartment on March 14, 2016. I have also considered the fact that the actions of the respondents and their employees created a significantly poisoned environment that forced her and her father to seek other accommodation when she was 6 or 7 months pregnant. Aside from the objective impact of your housing being threatened in the way that it was in the case, being a young soon-to-be parent would have exacerbated the harm. I have not considered her being a mere witness to the abuse of her father because I do not believe that is compensable in the circumstances.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Ramnarine-Smith v. Havcare Investments Inc., 2018 HRTO 878 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/ht0fp>, retrieved on 2024-09-24