Thursday, 25 January 2018

'Damage'



The word is older than Latin. Perhaps its earliest meaning was "to apportion in exchange." In Latin, the word became “to damn” (or “to pronounce judgment on).” Medieval French created damage: loss caused by injury.

... Loss, injury, and causation. So all of common law. And I am assigned 250 words.
I will touch on a cause of action which I find interesting: unjust enrichment.

Democratic institutions in Canada are failing to slow the growth of economic inequality.  From a critical perspective, this inequality is one result of exploitative workplace relations and negligent or even fraudulent lawmakers.

While arguments that workplaces in Canada rely on unjust enrichment are uncommon in jurisprudence, I am not suggesting that judges are corrupt, or negligent. I trust that most are doing what they can.

But the fact remains: capital is accumulating, and concentrating, and those with undue influence over large concentrations of capital continue to oppose efforts to redistribute it. Of course. They resist democratic controls—they call it interference—and they are very well-organized.

As for our commons, and the damage done there. Where elected lawmakers are negligent, they should be held liable. Where they are corrupt, they are providing dishonest assistance to those with undue influence, and they should be held liable.

Restitutionary remedies are available for dishonest assistance. The courts have developed these remedies in decisions on breach of duty.

Wednesday, 9 November 2016

Opinion, research, social media engagement, even APA citation - all to be found in this lively life-affirming post

A clarification regarding 'professional tenants': someone like James Regan could potentially live rent-free for a year or longer, if he files notice to appeal, then does nothing to move the matter forward. It would be up to his landlord to follow up.

If the tenant hasn't continued to pay the rent, the 'stay' preventing the eviction will be lifted and the landlord can call the sheriff. The landlord will have to pay for an hour or two (Thiele, 2013). of a lawyer's time to have the motion(s) drafted, but they could include those fees when they seek relief through a small claims action.

I invite readers interested in tenancy issues to explore Ontario Landlord and Tenant Law, a blog maintained by Ottawa lawyer Michael Thiele. Thiele has lots of experience in this area and has seen how landlords, and tenants, behave badly. It really is an excellent resource, and I thank Thiele for it.

Now I'm picking up my 'facts wand,' because I wish to dispel any notion that the Landlord and Tenant Board is biased against landlords. (I just imagined myself wandering the province hitting journalists on the head with a wand ... I don't think that would end well. Instead) I'm going to look at the board's most recent decisions:




Two days, 13 decisions, each of which with potentially life-altering consequences:

TEL-73859-16. Call the Sheriff. +1 landlords.
TEL-73523-16. Tenants homeless as of November 1st. +1 landlords.
TET-72283-16. Landlord didn't appear, easy +1 tenants.
TSL-77257-16-SA. Complex and 'murky,' but +1 tenants. 
TSL-77439-16. Landlord wanted to evict because the faucet leaked. +1 tenants.
TST-74358-16-RV. +1 landlords, because the tenant filed the wrong form.
TSL-76995-16. Landlord wanted to evict a noisy 3-year-old. Dismissed, +1 tenants.
TST-73170-16. Landlord wanted to keep a pile of pre-paid rent. Illegal. +1 tenants.
TST-74633-16. Landlord not responsible for leak. Effective corporate lawyer/paralegal. +1 landlords.
TET-68745-16. Duplex falling down around tenants. Landlord indifferent. +1 tenants.
TET-68956-16. Another shitty unscrupulous landlord. Decision a draw.
TSL-71120-16-VO. A motion (with an anxious tenant in attendance). No points awarded.
TSL-77532-16. Tenant evicted from what appears to be a community housing unit. +1 landlords.

Tenants 7 - 6 Landlords. There you have it, proof that the law is stacked against landlords. WE NEED REFORM!


* * *

I'd planned to review law-related blogs created by my colleagues in the paralegal program, but no one has posted anything yet. I'll list the blogs here anyway:

I'm looking forward to following these blogs when they become active.


Reference
Thiele, M. (2013, July 2). Appeals to the divisional court. Retrieved from http://ontariolandlordandtenantlaw.blogspot.ca/2013/07/appeals-to-divisional-court.html

Tuesday, 8 November 2016

A 'bad apple,' a 'biased journalist'

An accusation of bias isn't always a big deal. We all have biases we'll readily admit to. I'm biased against argyle socks, anything with white 'chocolate,' and people who join a conservative political party. But for many serious journalists, there is no dirtier four-letter word. Journalists are supposed to be aware of biases, both their own (especially their own) and those of others. And they are supposed to make some effort to consider or seek out opposing views.

I admit that I would not be a very good journalist, even if I am sometimes able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Source
CBC journalist Trevor Dunn has an agenda: "things to be done." He has to pick up the dry cleaning, call his mother, and help generate public outrage about professional tenant James Regan. With well over 10,000 'shares' of the Regan story, Dunn has generated nearly as much outrage as Hydro One's 'smart' meters.

Slow down, you might say. The story is newsworthy. No one should be able to abuse the system the way Regan has. And when Dunn repeatedly reminds readers that tenants have an automatic right to appeal a LTB ruling, he's simply telling us what Regan's current landlord can expect.

No, he isn't.

What's actually happening: large landlords have persuaded the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Housing Policy Branch [Residential and Commercial Tenancies Unit]) to reconsider that right to appeal. LTB rulings would be final.

Can they do that? Isn't the right to appeal a court decision firmly established? Yes, it is. But boards and tribunals are not courts, and common law has, erm, 'failed' to entrench the right to appeal their decisions. Provinces must create this right through statute. Tenants in Ontario currently have this right, but they may be about to lose it.

Plenty of large landlords are members of the Ontario Liberal Party, I'm sure.

According to the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, fewer than 1% of LTB decisions are appealed to a divisional court. (This is a depressing statistic, since the LTB has been very landlord-friendly since ... forever. It was established by Harper's government, after all.) Almost no one abuses this right. James Regan is an anomaly.

There is obviously little need to amend the Residential Tenancies Act. With ready access to CBC researchers, and with a professional obligation to seek out those opposing views, Trevor Dunn should be aware of this.

There are two sides to any story. Dunn will have learned this in his first journalism course at Carleton or Humber or Bahrain Technical Institute.

In tenants ats. landlords, it's the tenants who lack the resources, and a voice in big media. Trevor Dunn and CBC Toronto want us to believe that tenancy law is biased against landlords, and they know that repetition creates reality.

Monday, 7 November 2016

Now I'm back to let you know ...

No, I can't really shake 'em down. But I did manage to learn a thing or two about tenancy law in Ontario while I was away.

I know that I said I'd look at another LTB decision with this post, but something much more interesting has caught my attention. Or rather, someone.

© CBC News
That's 'professional tenant' James Regan. Regan apparently enjoys living rent-free in apartments in tony Toronto neighbourhoods. Who wouldn't?

And @trevorjdunn of CBC Toronto apparently enjoys naming and shaming Regan. Dunn has written at least four stories about the guy. He has ambushed Regan on camera. He has sat in on his LTB hearings. I wouldn't be surprised if Regan has daydreamed about sticking a potato in the exhaust pipe of Dunn's CBC van.

Regan probably approves. Image © CBC News
Few would dispute that Regan's actions merit attention. Regan appears to have acted in very bad faith. His apparent modus operandi:

1) not pay rent
2) wait for eviction notice
3) think up a way to contest the notice
4) appear at the LTB eviction notice hearing, make a complaint (e.g. faulty air conditioner)
5) ask that the LTB adjourn to investigate the complaint
6) appear at the next hearing
7) think up a way to have that hearing adjourned (e.g. phantom legal representative unable to appear)
8) if that fails, wait for an eviction order
9) apply for leave to appeal the order to a divisional court
10) wait for court to deny appeal
11) find a new apartment
12) see step 1
12a) wait for service of claim
12b) eventually settle with the previous landlord for less than he owed.

Okay, step 12b) is only my speculation. But why else would he bother with the rest of it? Sure, rent is theft, but no one expects the revolution this year.

Clearly the guy is an ass, an ass who has read the Residential Tenancies Act. He's probably read through all kinds of statutes and regulations, looking for ways to screw people. And his actions, with the help of CBC's Trevor Dunn, might have screwed Ontario tenants for years to come.

And how has he done that, you ask? You'll have to read my next post, won't you?

Friday, 30 September 2016

Getting Started: The LTB

© 2016 Ontario Landlords Association

The Landlord and Tenant Board is one of the busiest tribunals in the province. This blog will look at some of the more recent decisions that the Board has made, and offer speculation on both the circumstances of the matters raised, and the reasoning apparent in the Board's determinations.

These posts will be learning exercises, as I know almost nothing about how the Residential Tenancies Act has been applied, and I am woefully ignorant of contemporary landlord and tenant issues.

The Board's decisions can be found on the Canadian Legal Information Institute’s website.

MH evicts HH
This is the Board's most recent published decision. In August of this year, a landlord obtained an eviction order for her tenant. The landlord, ‘MH,’ claimed that she had heard the tenant, ‘HH,’ utter a death threat. The tenant, ‘HH,’ requested a review of the eviction order. HH rejected the landlord’s claim. According to HH, no one had been threatened.

Few details were provided in the Review Order. Perhaps HH is MH’s son, perhaps HH had threatened his mother’s partner. Uttering a threat is a criminal offence, but there is no reference to criminal charges brought against HH. Nevertheless, the Board accepted the landlord’s “finding of fact.” The Board considered MH a sufficiently reliable witness, and the request to review the eviction order was denied. (Landlord and Tenant Board, 2016).

It appears, then, that if a landlord witnesses behaviour that threatens the safety of another person in the residence, obtaining an eviction order is relatively straightforward. This is likely for the best, though I wonder whether a police investigation would allow for a more complete assessment of the evidence. From HH’s perspective, however, an eviction is almost certainly preferable to a conviction under the Criminal Code and an eviction. Perhaps the Board recognized this, and did not insist upon additional investigation.

It is possible that HH struggles with mental illness. In any case, I hope that HH succeeded in finding housing following the eviction. My next post will look at a more complex order which involved a not-for-profit social housing and a tenant with a documented mental illness.


References
Landlord and Tenant Board. September 7, 2016. TSL-74420-16-RV (Re), 2016 CanLII 61385 (ON LTB), retrieved September 30, 2016 from http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onltb/doc/2016/2016canlii61385/2016canlii61385.html

N.B. For ease of reading, I've sort of mixed the APA and ACWS citation styles.