Tenant Protection Law B

Friday, November 20, 2009

Special Needs of the Mentally Ill and Overview - Week 10 Discussion

Background: Read a submission by the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office (PPAO) to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing prior to third reading of Bill 109, the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. Although Bill 109 has now been enacted the submissions are still relevant. The PPAO is an organization within the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care that ensures that the rights of those with mental illness are not being abused. A psychiatric patient may be admitted involuntarily to a hospital by a doctor. Often the patient is brought to the hospital by the police after some incident. The patient can then challenge the involuntary admission. The PPAO, through rights advisers, ensures that the patient will have legal representation. One concern will be that the patient may have no place to live, particularly if the incident leading to the admission was an act of violence in the patient’s previous residence.

Note: Postings are due by the beginning of class in Week 12.

Discussion Questions:
1. Identify 3 or 4 of the key recommendations regarding Bill 109. What are the special needs of psychiatric patients that support these recommendations?

2. Do you agree or disagree with these recommendations? Give your reasons.

3. In your opinion, do the special needs of psychiatric patients justify amendments to the law that will impact all tenants or landlords in the province? What alternative legislative approach could be followed?


“The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four Americans is suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you.”  Rita Mae Brown

posted by Richard Leighton at 10:16 a.m.

26 Comments:

  • Questions:

    1. Some of the key recommendations regarding Bill 109. Where that section 1 and 203 which refer to social housing exemptions, should be deleted. Also, that the RTA should allow the Board to have jurisdiction over social housing tenants. Some of the special needs of psychiatric patients that support these recommendations. Include that social housing tenants who question rental subsides have access only to an internal, not independent, review. It is discriminatory that these tenants do not have the same protections as private market tenants. In fact, there should be a higher standard of review of social housing landlords as their tenants are amongst some of the most vulnerable in the province.

    Another key recommendation regarding Bill 109, was that section 6(2)(c) which says that rental units built since 1991 are exempt from rent controls, should be removed from the RTA. Some of the special needs of psychiatric patients that support this specific recommendation. Include that there is no logical rationale for permitting rental units built after 1991 to be exempt from the annual rent increase guidelines, potentially resulting in an increased number of units being beyond the financial reach of the economically disadvantaged. By distinguishing between newer and older units, the RTA is perpetuating the divide between the rich and the poor. Tenants with lower incomes, including many of the PPAO's clients, may be forced to live in older buildings that will likely be more prone to disrepair.

    Also, another key recommendation regarding Bill 109, was that section 27(4) which states that a landlord may enter a rental unit if written notice is given at least 24 hours before the time of entry to determine if the rental unit is in a good state of repair, fit for habitation and complies with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards. The recommendation was that section 27(4) should be omitted from Bill 109. Some of the needs of psychiatric patients that support this specific recommendation. Include that this specific provision is extremely subjective and there is great potential for abuse. Landlords may use this provision to harass tenants, especially mental health consumers, and impose their own values on tenants and their living conditions.

    By Blogger Afush Khan, at 2:42 p.m.  

  • 2. I personally agree with this particular recommendation that section 1 and 203 which refer to social housing exemptions, should be deleted. This is mainly because I feel that psychiatric patients that are tenants should not be discriminated against, and should be provided with the same protection as private market tenants. I also am in agreement with the statement that there should be a higher standard of review of social housing landlords because, their tenants are some of the most vulnerable people in society.

    I agree with the recommendation that section 6(2)(c) which says that rental units built since 1991 are exempt from rent controls, should be removed from the RTA. I agree that this section should be completely removed since, there is no reasonable logic or rationale behind this specific section. I also agree with the view that, by distinguishing between newer and older units, the RTA is perpetuating the divide between the rich and the poor. I feel that this particular section is putting a cap on affordable housing, and this section will potentially result in an increased number of units being beyond the financial reach of the economically disadvantaged.

    I personally agree with this specific recommendation that section 27(4) should be omitted from Bill 109. I agree that this particular section opens to many doors for problems and that there is great potential for abuse of this section. I think that this particular section will be used by some landlords to just regularly inspect the tenants living habits. I also think that some landlords will just use this section as an opportunity to try an evict a tenant for some type of damage that they have caused or something of that sort which was noticed on one of these inspections by the landlord. I also agree with the view that landlords may use this provision to harass tenants, especially mental health consumers, and impose their own values on tenants and their living conditions.

    By Blogger Afush Khan, at 2:44 p.m.  

  • 3. I personally feel that some of these particular amendments to the law are necessary for the greater good of society. Since I feel that we are all obligated in one way or another to protect the vulnerable people in our society. I personally feel that the mentally ill are one of the most vulnerable groups in our society, and therefore we are obligated to protect them to the best of our ability. I think that the special needs of psychiatric patients do not justify amendments to the law that will impact all tenants or landlords in the province. I feel that some of these sections should not be omitted or deleted since they apply to the average individual who is a landlord or a tenant that does not have a mental disability of any sort. An alternative approach that can be followed is by having an exemption for these particular sections that only apply to individuals that have a mental illness. I think by doing this it will help protect this specific vulnerable group, and make sure that they are not being taken advantage of, without making amendments to the law which don't apply to everyone. Or create a section that apply to individuals with mental illness' that will help meet their specific needs.

    By Blogger Afush Khan, at 2:46 p.m.  

  • Some thoughts:

    "Nothing is illegal if one hundred businessmen decide to do it." Andrew Young

    "All things considered, insanity may be the only reasonable alternative." Anon.

    By Blogger Hippy Chick, at 9:47 p.m.  

  • Wow...this is really a sensitive subject. It's hard for me to give my opinion without sounding like a cold-hearted b..To play it safe, I'll go with the recommendations that I agree with.
    1) I agree that section 6(2)(c) should be removed. EVERYONE is entitled to the luxury of living in a newer building. This is just another method of the government segregating classes.
    2) The disposal of tenant property should be extended from 72 hours to a week. This is beneficial to anyone moving out of a building. No discrimination there.
    3) I agree that the Board should have jurisdiction over social housing tenants. It just doesn't seem fair that labelling the "social housing tenants" gives the right to treat our fellow human beings any less.
    4) Lastly, I also believe that the members of the Board undergo regular training and education regarding the unique needs and issues facing mental health consumers.
    Now here's the part that makes me sound heartless. I honestly do believe that mental health is a serious issue. Prisons are overcrowded because of the ignorance on separating the criminals from the mentally ill. They do need special attention; however, changing alot of the Act really isn't fair to EVERYONE else. This isn't a perfect world. There are those "fools" that will never understand differences. Would changing the rules not subject some of the mentally ill to more ridicule and segregate them from society? Sure, if we all underwent special training in that field, it would be perfect. They need special attention and professional help, but making provisions for the mentally ill could open the doors to all walks of life. So where do we draw the line? Just for the record, I have a mentally handicapped family member so I writing from what I feel, not what I SHOULD say. Sorry folks.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:16 p.m.  

  • I agree with GGulver that this is a very sensitive topic. I have been on the other side of this topic. My husband's older brother has schizoprenia and we've been on the opposite side. He has been victimized by underhanded landlords, who have taken his disability pension numerous times. We have picked him up from living on the streets, under bridges throughout the past 24 years. The journey for him has not been an easy one, and for my husband and I very trying and tiring. To add to the situation he has dual citizenship with Canada and the U.S.. He is now, as we are,thankfully through many years of building and placing an accessible good support system for him, the past two years have been good. In reading the recommendations I agree with the following to omit s. 27 (4),s. 41 (2) and (3), as well as setting aside orders. When dealing with individuals who suffer from mental illness there are many different variables that enter into the entire picture. It is my opinion that family, a good support system should be made accessible for landlords to contact. Nosey landlords can be a problem, but then a nosey landlord can intervene with an individual not taking their meds and causing more harm to themself or others. Notifying the secondary name on the tenants information could in essence place a protective measure on for the tenant and eliviate liability for the landlord. Individuals diagnosed with mental issues react and respond differently. The one week notice of disposal of tenant property allows sufficient notice and time for removal of personal belongings. The board reviewing the cases individually would allow for hysteria, and reacting from the tenant. We can only review, update, challenge, all of the amendments to the law to assist this concern with compassion, understanding and educating ourselves. I had the experience 6 years ago of working in a group home of 10 men with various mental illness challenges. That house was security, a safe place, peace of mind, a meal, for each one of the men that needed to be part of society.

    By Blogger Linda, at 11:51 p.m.  

  • I agree with a lot of what the has to say, but especially with:
    SOCIAL HOUSING EXEMPTIONS: There should be a higher standard of review of social housing landlords. Tenants in subsidized housing have enough hardships and difficulties. I agree that the RTA should allow the Board jurisdiction over these tenants. Social housing tenants are some of the most vulnerable of society, they need more protections.
    ENTRY TO INSPECT RENTAL UNIT: Section 27(4)states a landlord can enter a unit with 24 hours written notice to determine if it is in a good state of repair. They want to remove this, which I agree with because inspecting someones way of living could be very subjective. A landlord could use his prejudice to force a tenant out that they felt had a mental illness,that they were not comfortable with.
    DISPOSAL OF TENANTS PROPERTY: Section 41 (2) and (3) refers to the landlords ability to dispose of the tenants property 72 hours after the enforcement of the eviction order, with no remedy available if the landlord disposes of the property before the 72 hours has elapsed. They want to extend the time limit to one week, which I find to be reasonable and I also think they should have a remedy available. Someone may be in the hospital or indisposed.
    What harm would it do to make these amendments to the law. It would benefit the mentally ill and everyone else.

    By Blogger kellya, at 8:35 p.m.  

  • One of the key recommendations regarding Bill 109 is that section 6(2)(c) should be removed from the RTA. Psychiatric patients have many special needs. Some patients do not have a job, and have to live off of a disability cheque. They have a limited income every month. Psychiatric patients have a hard time supporting themselves without having to deal with rent increases. According to section 6(2)(c) of the RTA,” rental units built since 1991 are exempt from rent controls.” Psychiatric patients will have to live in old and rundown buildings because they will not be able to afford to live in rental units that have been built after 1991. I agree with the recommendation because I do not think that section 6(2)(c) is fair to all human beings. I feel that the section discriminates against low income families, and people with disabilities.

    A second key recommendation regarding Bill 109 is that the words “will full or negligent” should be included in sections 34 and 89. According to section 34 and 89 of the RTA, it is the tenant’s responsibility to repair the damage to the rental unit. Psychiatric patients can lose control of what they are thinking and what they are doing. Knowing that, a landlord could falsely accuse a tenant of damages. Psychiatric patients have disabilities and need to be protected. I agree with the recommendation because I do not believe that a tenant should have to repair damages if they did not mean to cause the damage. I feel that tenants pay enough rent that if something breaks by accident, the landlord should be responsible to fix it.

    A third key recommendation regarding Bill 109 is to delete sections 48 and 49. According to sections 48 and 49 of the RTA, a landlord can give notice of termination if the purchaser or landlord’s family needs to move into the rental unit. Landlords are able to use the law to their own advantage. This law allows a landlord to kick out any tenant that they may not want or like. Again, psychiatric patients do not have a huge income. They are not able to move countless times, and have to keep paying first and last month’s rent. I agree with the recommendation because I feel that purchasers who decide to become landlords should stay landlords, or at least warn the tenant that the tenancy is not forever. They should not be able to end a tenancy for those reasons.

    I do not necessarily feel that the laws should be amended for the special needs of psychiatric patients only. I feel that the amendments to the law would be helpful for all tenants in the province, especially those with disabilities. I feel that the recommendations should be followed through with. I feel that for the third recommendation, the law should be that the landlord must decide at the beginning of the tenancy whether or not they will choose to occupy the rental unit in the future. This would allow the tenant to know ahead of time before spending the money and renting the rental unit. The tenant could then decide whether or not they wanted to take their chances renting the unit or not, but there would be no surprises.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 10:29 p.m.  

  • I agree with what Kelly said about social housing exemptions. Tenants with disabilities need special care and protection. I also agree with what she said about the disposal of tenat's property. I also agree that they should extend the time limit to a week or even more. I do not feel that any harm would be done by this. Thank you for sharing your comments.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 10:36 p.m.  

  • I think that many of the recommendations made are valid and it does deserve serious consideration. For instance, section 6(2)(c) which states that rental units built since1991 are exempt from rent controls, is completely ridiculous. There is no reason why this should apply and it only marginalizes and discriminates against those who cannot afford to rent a newer building. This will cause the landlords to favour those in the newer buildings and give less care and attention to those in the older buildings. I feel that this is segregation and that those with mental illness are already going through hard times, and that this separation only makes them feel less valuable to our society, which is wrong. Also section 41(2) and (3), which deals with the disposal of tenant’s property should be changed. It does state that there has been an improvement from 48 hours to 72 however I still don’t think that it is enough time for someone to pick up all their things and find another place to live. That would be tough for me to do, could you imagine how difficult it would be for someone who is mentally ill. Let’s face it, people discriminate the mentally ill, so finding another place to live in 72 hours is highly unlikely if not impossible. I believe a week is a good amount of time. This gives the person time to move their stuff out, get a moving truck, and most importantly find another place to live before taking ones valuables out of the apartment. I don’t think this is too much to ask. I understand that the landlord loses out, because he can’t get a new tenant in the building as fast as he would want, but tough; why is it alright to treat people like garbage?, everyone should have the right to have shelter and if it means that the landlord has to wait a week, then so be it; were all human, lets act like it. Another recommendation that I believe is completely valid and possible is the recommendation that deals with section 48 and 49 where if the landlord needs a rental unit for himself he can evict a tenant. Although the landlord does own the property I think it is absurd to just kick someone out, but most importantly the landlord might lie in order to remove a tenant that he no longer wants living there. That is unfair and like the reading said, it leads to abuse.
    I think many of these recommendations should be accepted and followed. I know some people might argue that if we change it for the mentally ill then we must change it for the single moms, or those who are disabled in another way; I get that. But, those other people facing hard times have a greater chance of succeeding because they have their minds to rely on. Just imagine being mentally ill; I think it is one of the toughest things to deal with. We shouldn’t make things harder for them, than it already is. I understand that these recommendations will impact all tenants and landlords in the province, but I think it’s important that we have this exception for the mentally ill because they need all the help they can get; they deserve it.

    By Blogger J-Rod, at 11:23 a.m.  

  • 1. Identify 3 or 4 of the key recommendations regarding Bill 109. What are the special needs of psychiatric patients that support these recommendations?
    I found some recommendations important, those are:
    1. Setting Aside Orders. The recommendations consists in include provisions to permit the Board to set-aside an order in circumstances where the tenant can demonstrate that their absence was reasonable.
    In every process or proceeding could appear special and reasonable circumstances in which one of the parties can not pursuing the dispositions of the Court. I think the Tribunal should have the discretion to order the set aside of some orders of the Tribunal. But for other way I was thinking that one reason of the proceedings under the Residential and Tenancy act is the summary process to resolve conflicts or disputes between landlord and tenants and If appear the possibility to present an application to set aside an order (or motion) in this case could make the proceeding unlawful and unjust, for the long time. So, in exceptional circumstances the Tribunal should admit this kind of applications to set aside an order.
    2. Care Homes. Add new sections to Part IX of the RTA incorporating a Resident’s Bill of Rights and education to ensure just and consistent treatment of residents of care homes.
    I think the education and the knowing of the rights, freedoms and obligations of the parties in a relationship is important for the parties and the society. Section 15 of the Constitution of Canada provides that every individual is “equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law”. In this case, equality is expressed in four different ways: equality before the law, equality under the law, equal protection of the law and equal benefit of the law. That is the reason that all the tenants should have the same rights than others in the regulations and in exceptions some tenants should receive more protection than others.
    3. Tenant’s Responsibility for Repair of Damages. The words “willfull or negligent” should be included in sections 34 and 89.
    Analyzing these situations in which unscrupulous individuals can cause damages, I think the Tenant Protection Act should state an offence for this kind of person. For other way, about the negligence or willfull should be demonstrated in a hearing with evidence about this kind of events. But to proof this could be a problem for the Tribunal and I do not know if the Tribunals have the faculty to do this kind of study (negligence or willfull).
    4. Entry to Inspect Rental Unit. Section 27(4) should be omitted. I am agree with this part of the propose because I think that in this situations the landlords can abuse his/her positions of power and harass, influence, harm, of the situations of the person with mental illness. I agree when this recommendation says that this section is extremely subjective. I think this section can be replace or added some part in which says that some witness should be present in the moment of inspection, and this witness should be a person who represents some institutions of the Society or Community.
    People with mental illness are often the most vulnerable in our communities. The problems are stigma, discriminations and inadequate social assistance. The people with mental illness need the attention of the government and private institutions to prevent social damages and consequences which can cause irreparable consequences in the future.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 3:03 p.m.  

  • 2. Do you agree or disagree with these recommendations? Give your reasons.
    I agree with these recommendations but not in its totality. The reasons are:
    1. Each regulations has wrong or mistakes parts, to get knowledge of this mistakes the regulations need to be enforce and in the moment of applications in the reality we can get notice of this mistakes of the Regulations, that is the reason that each regulations are not perfect because the issues and situations of a society changes all the time and appear new situations to regulate.
    2. I disagree with some of the recommendations for example with the recommendations: Social house Exemptions which says that Sections 1 and 203 should be deleted. The RTA should allow the Board to have jurisdiction over social housing tenants. I was reading this sections and I found that this Social House are regulated by the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000.


    3. In your opinion, do the special needs of psychiatric patients justify amendments to the law that will impact all tenants or landlords in the province? What alternative legislative approach could be followed?
    I think to make a change in the regulations is necessary an study about the statistics of this necessity to change the regulation in Canada or Ontario. Because if there are a tendency of this kind of situations of tenant with mental illness the government should change the regulations. To change the law the government can take several ways for example add or modified or delete dispositions of the Act (amendments) or can develop an alternative legislation approaching the issues in the case that the tenant suffer mental illness.
    By other way, the government has responsibility to regulate and prevent unjust or unfair situation because the tenant with mental disability are humans and have the same rights that others in this society.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 3:03 p.m.  

  • To start, I would like to say that everyone has brought up very interesting and valid points!

    In regards to sections 63, 80(2) and 84, these are exceptions to an eviction order. Those sections are exceptions to the general rule about the effective termination date. It permits the landlord to give 10 days’ notice of termination on an eviction order. This process is a problem, as landlords are able to produce an eviction order on the basis of allegations before the tenant is even aware of the eviction proceedings. I agree with the recommendation to delete these sections, as short time periods are terrible for many mental illness patients who may be at a low point in their illness, and maybe unable to respond quickly.

    In consideration to the recommendation regarding the disposal of tenant property, sections 41(2) and (3), there is no remedy available for tenants if landlords dispose of the property before 72 hours elapse. This is an insufficient period of time for a tenant to retrieve their belongings. If tenants are being evicted in the first place, they are probably experiencing other stress in their life to make it difficult for them to collect their property so promptly. I agree with this recommendation to extend the time period to one week, personally I believe it should be longer. I would also like to say that I highly agree with J-Rod`s point when he stated that "people discriminate the mentally ill, so finding another place to live in 72 hours is highly unlikely if not impossible."

    Another recommendation in which i agree with is to draft provisions in the RTA to eliminate vacancy decontrol; I think the concept of vacancy decontrol is ridiculous, allowing a landlord to secure any amount when renting to a new tenant. This practice encourages landlords to ignore the needs of long-term tenants, especially those who are vulnerable, life mental health consumers.

    Firstly, I definitely agree with these recommendations because they are needed and reasonable, in order to assist the special needs of mental health patients.

    Personally, I believe that the special needs of psychiatric patients do justify amendments to the law that will impact all tenants and landlords in the province. However, if changing the law which will affect all landlord and tenants, even those who do not require special needs, creates a problem, then maybe an alternative legislative approach might work. What if there was a separate section under the RTA pertaining specifically to those who require these special needs. Overall though, I feel that these recommendations are beneficial for the mentally ill, as well as everyone else.

    Finally, I would like to discuss what Gail said:
    "They need special attention and professional help, but making provisions for the mentally ill could open the doors to all walks of life. So where do we draw the line?"
    I agree that there is a point where we should draw the line, but in regards to the mentally ill, who are a very vulnerable group, shouldn`t we do all that we can to assist them and try to prevent them from being taken advantage of.

    Overall, I think that the recommendations are reasonable and necessary in order to help these individuals overcome a few of the stresses contained in their life.

    By Blogger Amanda .A., at 5:27 p.m.  

  • Amanda, you are so right. The mentally ill do need special attention, but so do the homeless, the victims of child abuse, women of spousal abuse. These are all vulnerable people. I'm not saying don't change ALL the recommentdations, but changing a few to benefit everyone in that complex would cause less friction. The mentally ill need more hospitals with professionals to give them the help they rightly need and deserve. Instead many are being housed in prisons and buildings that do not understand their needs; therefore, really not helping them.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:35 p.m.  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Jennah, at 9:08 p.m.  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Jennah, at 9:08 p.m.  

  • There were a few recommendations regarding Bill 109 that stuck out for me. I, nor anyone else I know has had to experience the hardships that some psychiatric patients have to endure. Like very many other topics that can be defined as controversial, it is rather unlikely that there can be a final decision made in respect to what changes are necessary to Bill 109. There will always be a group of people on one side of things, while another group stands opposing it. In this case, I feel as though psychiatric patients are the one stuck on the opposing side, watching as laws are made to discriminate towards them.

    To begin with, I would like to identify a few recommendations. The ones that stuck out the most for me include section 6(2), section 27(4), and section 41(2).

    In section 6(2), it is outlined that rental apartments which were developed prior to 1991 would then be omitted from the rest of units that abide by rental controls.

    In section 27(4), landlords are given the authority to enter a unit they are renting so long as they give the tenant 24 hours notice. The landlord then has the ability to “inspect” the apartment at which point they are able to make the judgment on whether it is in a decent state or needs repairing done.

    Finally, section 41(2) deals with the removal of tenant property upon conviction. Tenants are given 72 hours to gather their belongings after an eviction is carried out. If at the end of the 72 hours the tenant has unsuccessfully taken all of their property from the rental unit, landlords are then given the authority to dispose of the items for them.

    I would have to agree that all of these sections should be amended or better yet, removed. If an individual is faced with any of the unfortunate situations, it is rather unlikely that they would be able to get over them with ease.

    For example, in respects to section 6(2), it is unjustifiable to have certain units exempted from rental controls. I see this section as a concern since it is almost ensuring that those who are less fortunate would have to live in older dwellings, as opposed to those who are living a little bit more comfortably and can afford newer housing. Not to say that all psychiatric patients are struggling, but there is a higher chance that they are living off of disability cheques instead of a six figure income and therefore may be forced to look for cheaper, affordable housing. It is almost as though there is a larger divide that is being created between the better off and the poor.

    By Blogger Jennah, at 9:11 p.m.  

  • As for section 27(4), I do not see how someone should be given the power to go around conducting random home inspections and then provide unsolicited opinions on how one may like to keep their own living space. Yes, there is a limit, such as unsanitary living conditions due to mold infestation, but judging one’s home based on how much mess they have around is another topic. According to this section, landlord can enter a home with 24 hour notice to inspect the unit to see if they think it is in a good state. Psychiatric patients may be at a disadvantage to discriminative landlords who are looking for nothing but to get rid of their unwanted tenant. Landlord basically have the power to go into any home, say they do not see it as fit for living and then toss the tenant. This makes it too easy for a landlord who does not want to have a psychiatric patient in their home.

    Lastly, section 41(2) allows for landlords to dispose of personal belongings that an evicted tenant was not able to gather upon 72 hours of an eviction date. I see this as being ridiculous seeing as though someone who is being evicted probably does not have the money set aside to afford a moving truck to haul away their belongings. If they did, they probably would have just paid their rent instead of having to worry about moving day. It is almost as though this section is set out to kick those who are down even deeper. Yes, some people are just delinquents who had the intention of not paying rent and moving elsewhere, but there are also those who simple could not keep up with the rising costs of living and have nowhere else to go. Instead of allowing the individual leave with their belongings, section 41(2) makes it so that the landlord can evict them and keep their belongings to make up for the lost rent. Not all people sit around saying I am going to screw this person out of their rental income. It could be a single mother who just lost her job or a psychiatric patient who was not given his or her last disability cheques.

    As much as I do agree that the recommendations I mentions should be changed drastically or abolished, I do feel, as hypocritical as it may be, that the needs of psychiatric patients does not justify amendments to the law that would in turn effect all landlords and tenants of the province. Instead, there should be specific dealings to psychiatric patients instead of applying those benefits to the entire population. If beneficial amendments were applied to the entire population of landlords and tenants, we would inevitably face the people who take advantage of the amendments, even though they were not set out for them. The needs of psychiatric patients should be addressed on a more personal manner, as opposed to applying these changes to all.

    By Blogger Jennah, at 9:12 p.m.  

  • One key recommendation is that Section 1 and 203 should be deleted. Psychiatric patients should have the same protections as private market tenants. I agree with this recommendation because psychiatric patients deserve to have the same protections as anyone else. Taking away from them could only make situations worse. I believe that the RTA should allow the Board to have jurisdiction over social housing. Removing section 6(2)(c) from the RTA is also a key recommendation. These people may not be able to get a good paying job and there for will be forced to live in older buildings that are more prone to disrepair. If there is no logical rationale for this section than why are we following it. I agree that section 6(2)(c) should be removed. Another recommendation is that the time limit to collect possessions after eviction should be extended to one week instead of 72 hours. I agree with this recommendation because tenants probably don`t have anywhere to go when they are evicted, therefore they have nowhere to but their possessions. A week could give them time to at least find somewhere to keep their things.

    I think that in some aspects the special needs of psychiatric patients justify amendments to the law that will impact all tenants or landlords in the province. If these people are living out on their own then they should be treated like anyone else. Landlords can have many problems with any tenant. You can`t say that because these people are psychiatric patients that they will cause more problems, they are just different situation. Having a drug dealer living in your rental unit could be a lot more dangerous than a psychiatric patient. An alternative could be that if a landlord has a psychiatric patient living in their rental unit than the landlord should have access to phone numbers of the patient`s family. This would be for a safety reason, for the patient and the landlord.

    By Blogger JessAnions, at 9:40 p.m.  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger JessAnions, at 9:40 p.m.  

  • I agree with some of the recommendations that have been proposed by my colleagues, but with regards to section 27(4), where the landlords are given the authority to enter a unit they are renting so long as they give the tenant 24 hours notice. I actually agree with this section. It is a general consensus that individuals with mental disability need help, and sometimes monitoring. Then the section giving the landlord the authority to gain entrance into the premises can serve them well, in case the individuals encounter set backs in their treatments, the landlords would be the frontline helpers that will reach out to the families and, or the psychiatric workers. I know it is not the job of the landlords, and that some might abuse mentally ill residence using this section. I believe that if the government set the guidelines that will govern the way the landlords’ deal with the issue of apartment inspection when it concerns individuals with mental illness then the potential for abuse would reduce and the chances for people with psychiatric need to get the help they need will increase.

    By Blogger iva.uwana, at 2:44 a.m.  

  • There seems to be general consensus on many of the recommendations regarding Bill 109. I especially agree with the Social Housing Exemptions. About a month ago the Toronto Star ran an exclusive story on the Social Housing conditions in Toronto. They found many of the units were infested by cockroaches, bedbugs and rats. Additionally, the buildings were in poor state of repairs. This apparently has been going on for some time, and the tenants have made hundreds of complaints. Of course as was mentioned, Social Housing is not covered under the RTA, and there is no recourse for these people. This situation is especially gruesome since the people that need the most protection from unscrupulous landlords are the ones not getting the help from the RTA and the government. It really irks me to see these poor people taken advantage of and they can’t do anything about it.
    I also think the exception to Entry to Inspect Unit should be changed, I can see bad landlords abusing this process. Perhaps the change should say that a landlord cannot inspect a rental until more than three times a year.
    I don’t like the Exception to Eviction Orders sections also. Some tenants are not very sophisticated and they just don’t know their rights. This is one the landlords can take advantage of very easily.
    On Vacancy Decontrol, I just don’t know enough about this subject to talk intelligently about it. My opinion is market forces should have something to do about increases in rent, but like I’ve said in the others blogs, the government needs to play a bigger part in helping those less fortunate.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 11:35 a.m.  

  • I agree with the recommendation that the RTA should allow the Board to have jurisdiction over social housing tenants. Social housing tenants are among the most vulnerable in the Province and an independent review should be required before social housing tenants can be evicted.

    I agree that the recommendation that section 27(4) should be omitted. This section gives landlords permission to enter a rental unit after 24 hours notice to ensure that it complies with safety standards, etc. This is unnecessary and only gives landlords the legal opportunity to harass tenants. Should a landlord suspect that the unit is unsanitary or otherwise does not comply with health and safety standards, an independent inspection could be made by a health inspector. As the PPAO stated, this provision is subjective and could be utilised to harass vulnerable tenants.

    The time for disposal of tenant’s property should be increased to a week long as other factors should be considered before the tenant’s property is simply thrown in the garbage. Vulnerable tenants may have other business to attend to; in the case of mental health consumers, the stress may result in them staying in a psychiatric hospital for a period of time to recuperate. During this time the landlord may dispose of their belongings. This is unacceptable. People with mental illness need to be protected and the RTA does not afford them any recourse in this matter as the landlord would have acted in accordance with the law.

    Separate legislation could be drafted to specifically protect the needs of psychiatric patients with regard to housing as all tenants do not need the same level of protection. Perhaps persons with certain mental illnesses could be prioritised on the social housing waiting lists to enable them to have a stable environment to live in. This would also offset the difficulty that many mental health patients have acquiring housing due to discrimination.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:35 p.m.  

  • Honestly this is a very sensitive issue, i agree to the social housing exemption because it will mean discriminating against this group of people. they should be treated fairly by allowing the Board to have jurisdiction over social housing tenants.
    s. 6(2)(c) in my opinion, should be exempted, if not it will turnout to be a social status thing,and will be more difficult for people with mental illness to secure accommodation in newer homes.concerning entry rental units i think special arrangement should be made for people with needs to prevent harassment. i agree to the extension of the time limit to one week, it is hard to find a place to put up,at leat one week if not more.
    above all the society should try as much as possible to come up with policy that accommodates the needs of people that have mental health issues, most times their needs are not recognised by many policy makers, health care providers,payers and members of the general public. FcRoyal

    By Blogger Fc Royal, at 10:13 p.m.  

  • The Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office (PPAO) presented very interesting recommendations regarding Bill 109; however, I think that some of them are too protective or unreasonable. There is a recommendation to extend to one week the time limit for tenants to collect their possessions after eviction took place. Currently, the time limit is 72 hours after the enforcement of the eviction order. I do not agree with PPAO because the tenants had enough time to remove their belongings before the eviction order. They were served with an application to the Board, there were a hearing, they were notified with the order, etc. There are many steps to be followed to evict a tenant, therefore, they had enough time to look for another place to live and to remove their belongings.
    Another recommendation that I also disagree with is the inclusion of the words “wilful or negligent” in sections 34 and 89 regarding to the tenant’s responsibility for repair of damages. I think that tenants should be always responsible for the compensation of any damage that they cause to the rental unit, either by their conduct or by their guests. I believe that it would be very hard to prove the tenant’s negligence to get compensation for damages, and they would use this protection unlawfully. If they know that they are liable for any damage caused to the rental unit, regardless their negligence, they will take a better care of the property.
    The third recommendation that I’d like to comment is the one that permits the Board to set-aside an order in circumstances where the tenant can demonstrate that their absence to the hearing was reasonable. I agree with this recommendation because I think this is a fair practice that should be introduced not only when the tenant is mentally ill, but in all circumstances when tenants present reasonable excuses for their absence.
    I do not think that the Residential Tenancies Act should be amended to protect the special needs of psychiatric patients because it is a broad legislation that would affect all tenants or landlords in the province. This kind of tenant is a minority; therefore, it does not justify changes in the law that would impact everybody. I think that a specific residential tenancy law should be passed to protect the rights of people with special needs, and it would only apply in their contracts.

    By Blogger Fernanda Welzel Lourenco, at 11:13 p.m.  

  • Fair is fair and I agree that the Board should have jurisdiction over social housing tenant. Everyone should have a right to live comfortable without being labelled.

    I agree with the recommendation that section 27(4) should be omitted. This allows landlords to enter your rental unit if written notice is given at least 24 hours before entry to make sure that the unit is in good condition and complies with health and safety standards. This is not right because it give landlords an upper hand to harass tenants.

    I agree that section 6(2) be removed from the RTA. It should not matter what your income is for you to live in a better place. We should all be treated as equals and that’s just that. Has for section 41(2) and (3) I have mixed emotions. This section gives a landlord the ability to dispose a tenant’s property 72 hours after there has been an eviction order. I feel that this rule should only go for certain tenants depending on the grounds of their eviction. On the other had a week is good too; because it gives you time to move out and make sure that you have all your possessions.

    Finally I think the government needs to do a better job in helping those with mental illness’ they need to focus on the issues and work on helping them for years to come.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 2:00 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home