http://www.nlstoronto.org/3/post/2012/05/co-operative-housing-reform-the-worst-of-both-worlds.html
I summed up this on-coming legislation in my blog post Evictions - Part II dated February 15, 2009 and again in Inequities, dated January 20, 2011 as 'turnstile evictions'.
There is a rationale behind my blogs, albeit a frustrating one. There is nowhere for members to turn to for help, so I write. Our community legal clinic won't represent members, because co-ops are supposedly democratic entities and any problems incurred should, therefore, be dealt with by our Boards of Directors. Legal Aid only funds criminal, immigration and family law - no civil suits. With new eviction legislation coming on stream in the co-op sector, members' rights will be non-existent. I've coined this 'Turnstile Evictions' - it will just be a case of rubber stamping eviction notices. No need for appeals by members, no costly legal suits for co-ops to contend with. When I write my blog, I use my own personal experiences, but in essence, my blog also conveys what other people are going through in this co-op.
Bill 65 seems to have transformed itself into Bill 14 under the new session of Parliament. This CHF link gives an update on the proposed legislation.
http://www.chfcanada.coop/eng/pages2007/ontnews.asp?id=977
With this legislation, a co-op could create fictitious arrears, have a Property Manager march on down to the Landlord Tenant Board, manned by CHF employees and get an eviction notice rubber stamped before noon on a Monday morning and the pesky member in question would be eliminated, no questions asked. The only remaining residue of the offending member would be an empty unit, which the remaining members may or not even notice.
don't know if (some of) your comments were meant to be tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic so forgive me for any misinterpretation.
ReplyDeleteI went thru Bill again to make sense of changes and impact on Co-op Members. Frequent cross-referencing to LTA drove me loopy at times and I wasn't inclined to read that and then review changes between it and CCA.
My concern over this has always been mostly related to whether or not it takes any rights away from Members.
From what I can see, the devil is in the details and effect (or non-effect) won't be known until cases start hitting LTB.
That said, I have problems with some of interpretation listed in the article from Tor Legal Services.
First, the right to appeal a Board's decision to evict is only there if it is contained within by-laws. If provision is not there, there is no right. Co-ops are autonomous after all and while many cut and paste by-laws from other co-ops, there's no way to tell how many co-ops actually have this right. If it was never there, Bill 14 doesn't change anything.
Oh, and they can only seek eviction for grounds covered in LTA. Everything else still goes to Sup. Crt. Members didn't have right to bring up mainntance concerns before and still don't at LTB hearing so again I don't see what's changed.
One positive I noticed was that eviction can now be postponed for a "period of time." Co-op Act only allows for max of seven days.
This bill will get passed eventually even if Wynne gov't falls because it's had strong all-party support.
Now, the real question is what happens when first appeals start hitting LTB and whether any of rulings are challenged in courts. At least now lawyers who only handle LT matters are going to be going over this to find various loopholes.
It will be interesting to watch.
Hi Chris - Bill 14 will amend (remove) the eviction procedures under The Cooperative Corporations Act and deal with it under the LTB. Under the CCA, members have the right to appeal to the members(Section 171.8). I haven't read Bill 14 or Bill 65, but I've read reviews and implications of the new proposed legislation, which were very concerning. It is quite complicated and the more input from co-op members, the better.
DeleteTaking eviction procedures out of the CCA and setting up a Landlord Tenant Tribunal to deal with them was touted by CHF as a positive for all members in a housing co-op. The LTB would be manned by co-op sector employees. Under the CCA, a member could appeal a decision to evict him/her because of arrears. Under the LTB, there would be no appeal to members. There does not have to be any accountability on the part of the co-op. If the member does not pay the amount of money the co-op asks for, they would automatically get evicted.
Thanks for all your research.
Your blogs could reach a wider audience if you would allow on your Site people to link your blogs to Social Networking Sites for example: twitter and facebook, but you may seem not interested in that.
ReplyDeleteI will work on that, but I think I'll need some help : )
DeleteThanks!
I also noticed that LTB will not handle eviction cases based on housing charges calculations. The first is standard charges which I can see. The premise is that a co-op's members democratically approve or not increases. So the LTB (as with Courts) won't interfere.
ReplyDeleteBut it also says they will not (cannot) get involved in cases involving subsidy calculations. That could mean two things. It's an acknowledgment that LTB members don't have the expertise (legal or otherwise) to do so. Or because "regular" housing doesn't involve subsidies, that also is not a ground for eviction within LTB. Seems to me such cases will continue to go to Superior Crt. Unless there's something more sinister involved.
On Goodman's comment, I agree with him. Anything to get your blog read by more Co-op members can only be good. Yes, a lot of people accept the status quo and aren't interested in knowledge. But there are others who would feel a lot better knowing that what happens at their co-ops isn't unique and symptomatic of a larger problem.
The old Blogger format was much easier to understand. I had the option of opening up the blog to other people to contribute, not only in the Comments section, but to write articles as well, but I decided to keep it simple. It would be a good idea to reach as many people as possible. I'll work on it.
DeleteUnfortunately, I know nothing about social media and see no use for it so I can't help you there.
ReplyDeleteI based my comments on reading Bill 65, comparing it with s. 171 of Act and reading other material. I'll reiterate what I said about appeals to members on eviction. Both current CCA and new Bill allow for eviction appeals to the membership BUT only if such a provision exists in the by-laws. If such a provision is not in a given co-op's by-laws, nobody loses any rights. That's the issue I had with the TNLS blog. Of course, it seems unfair that some co-ops may not have that provision but various co-op by-laws are hardly uniform.
One thing which I don't understand from your comments. You say LTB will be made up of Co-op sector employees. Can you pls.clarify where you got that? Or is it a prediction? Thanx.
Hi Chris - CHF is proposing that a Co-operative Housing Tribunal be incorporated under the umbrella of the Rental Housing Tribunal and 'THAT
Deletethe Co-op Housing Tribunal’s determination of whether to evict be based on its own review of the merits of the case (a de novo
hearing), without reference to the internal process by which a co-op decides to apply for eviction.'
My husband and I read an update on this desired outcome, but we can't re-find the link.
The link to what I quoted above is:
http://www.chfcanada.coop/eng/pdf/ResourceDocs/Eviction_law_reform_brief.pdf
Thx. Yeah, I had that doc already. That is about the time when CHF first began lobbying for amendments for co-op evictions.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can tell from Bill 14, they did not get their wish for a separate tribunal operating within the LTB. To me, it doesn't suggest that adjudicators come from co-op sector. The 2004 doc only asked that they be trained in co-op evictions but that makes sense. Without going into another detailed side-by-side comparison between the 2004 doc and the Bill, it seems they got some of what they wanted, but not everything.
I'm no lawyer. I do know that a "de novo" hearing wipes the slate clean and "usually" results from an appellate court decision to have a lower court ruling reversed with instructions to start over again.
So whoever at LTB hearing the case takes a fresh look at all circumstances regarding proposed eviction, but not taking into account anything related to internal processes that led to BOD decision. Seems to me that a de novo hearing c/b double-edged sword for co-op. A member could raise issues, for example, that the BOD refused to hear or to take into acct.
I also seem to remember a co-op eviction case where Div Crt or COA ruled against having a case being reheard as "de novo." Unfortunately, I can't easily find case, either. It's in one of the 25 or cases I've downloaded.
Last point: If Co-op sector employees (CHASEO etc) would become adjudicators in eviction case, it would seem that the member could raise issues of bias esp on appeal to Court. The Co-op sector has a built-in vested interest in having eviction decisions go the way they want.
Guess we'll have to wait to see how it all sorts out.
Yes, the process of the new eviction procedures has been a long one. Here's another entry which portrayed one-stopping shopping on the part of co-ops:
Delete"With forms available from the tribunal or its Web site, experienced co-op staff
could often file an application for a standard eviction, go to the tribunal and
complete the eviction without talking to a lawyer, as staff do in a non-profit or
rental building."
This extract is from the following link:
http://www.chfcanada.coop/eng/pdf/ResourceDocs/Ont_RethinkingEvictions.pdf
I will read Bill 14 for the updates. Thanks for your very clear interpretation of what has transpired so far.