In Canada, approximately one-third of the population live in rental accommodations and are therefore subject to residential tenancy laws.1 Single-room occupancies, rooming houses, and supportive housing buildings are often some of the only affordable housing in major urban centres. Residents of these types of housing often still navigate through public spaces and shelters for various reasons including feeling unsafe in the accommodation in which they have tenancy rights, accessing their support networks or sources of income, inadequate income to cover rent, rules and policies of the housing provider, lack of knowledge of their tenancy rights, and the precarious legal status of the rental itself.
Certain populations experience poverty at disproportionate rates, meaning they are more likely to live in precarious housing and be impacted by residential tenancy legislation or supportive housing policies. Indigenous, Black, and other people of colour, people who use drugs, people stigmatized around mental illness or other health conditions, people with disabilities, and people who are non-conforming in other ways often experience greater enforcement than other precariously housed individuals who exist in these same spaces.
This section outlines caselaw and provincial and municipal legislation in BC and Ontario that impacts the belongings of people who exist in a variety of tenancies. Provincial residential tenancies statutes and regulations set out the housing-specific rights of tenants and their rights regarding their personal belongings. In precarious housing situations, it is not always clear whether residential tenancies legislation applies at all. This can leave tenants with less clarity as to what property rights they have or where they can go to resolve issues related to their belongings.
1.How “rental housing” is defined
This chapter categorizes rental housing based on its definition in provincial residential tenancies legislation. This includes tenancy agreements, rental units and other residential property.2 Both market rental tenancies and government-owned and run supportive housing amount to private property in that they are not open-air spaces that permit access to the general public (like parks or streets), and are not subject to the same municipal bylaws and provincial legislation governing these public spaces. However, the distinction between public and private space still effects the legal regulation of people’s personal belongings. Thus, this section discusses publicly funded, publicly run supportive housing projects and the complications involved in their designation as residential tenancies and the implications this has on people’s belongings. While a full analysis is outside of the scope of this chapter, the legal complexities between supportive housing and residential tenancies should be explored further. This section also explores private residential tenancy legislation in Ontario and British Columbia, with a particular focus on rooming houses and single-room occupancy hotels (SROs) and the private tenancy rights that accompany these spaces, given their “critical role…in low income housing stock as a last resort before homelessness for many…vulnerable tenants.”3
In addition, this section highlights some of the limitations of current residential tenancies legislation in protecting people and their belongings, and the process of leasing public storage lockers as a tactic in responding to precariousness of housing and personal belongings. This chapter also explores how municipal bylaws and jurisdiction can impact how tenancies are regulated and accessed in different municipalities and how this can impact people’s security of their belongings. Finally, this chapter includes the information about Property Standards bylaws and legislation and how that relates to tenancies.
In some accommodation situations, a person may not be protected by residential tenancy legislation, for example, if they share a kitchen or bathroom with their landlord, if they live in transitional housing situations, or if they live in shelters. Some of these situations will be discussed elsewhere in this report .
Vignette
Rayne moved into the city from a northern community to attend university.45 Rayne was in their 20s and was able to stay with family acquaintances for a few days until the end of the month when the high-rise apartment unit they had lined up online would be available to move in. The day before move-in day, Rayne went to meet the landlord to get keys and sign a lease. Upon meeting the landlord in front of the building, the landlord told Rayne that she had rented the unit to someone else who had a “better rental record” and could move in earlier. The landlord said that she had no other suites available.
Vignette
Rayne had only two days before the end of the month and only three days until the start of their first semester at university. Rayne didn’t want to impose on their family acquaintances any longer, so they found a place online, the only place they could afford that was available short notice. The online listing said it was a large house with shared bathroom and kitchen, but that it was a quiet place with mostly older adults.6 Luckily it was walking distance to city transit that could get them to university within twenty minutes, and had a free parking spot where they could leave their car.
In the anxious hustle of moving, getting keys, getting ready for university and paying first month’s rent, Rayne forgot to do a walk-through of the unit and forgot to sign a lease agreement. They called the landlord who said he would stop by in a few days once Rayne had settled in. The landlord never returned with the lease papers.7
Rayne moved in their belongings from their car which included computer gear, a small desk, and family gifts. Shortly after, Rayne purchased a nice used bed and bed frame online. They set up internet so they could study from home and game with their friends on the weekends.
In the anxious hustle of moving, getting keys, getting ready for university and paying first month’s rent, Rayne forgot to do a walk-through of the unit and forgot to sign a lease agreement
Vignette
After living in the apartment for the whole first semester, Rayne barely ever saw their landlord and paid rent monthly by online bank transfers. Over the months they notified the landlord by text about a mouse sighting, the shared bathroom having some mold and a leaky faucet, and one of the stove burners which stopped working, but the landlord never responded. Rayne made friends with a roommate named Terri, an older person who used a walker and came from a community neighbouring that of Rayne’s. Terri told Rayne that they were pretty sure they could not report anything to the Residential Tenancies office because their building was unlicensed.8
Returning home from writing their first final exam of the semester, Rayne’s key no longer opened the front door. Rayne texted their landlord who claimed that Rayne had been short on rent and that they had moved Rayne’s belongings into a communal storage room which Rayne had to have emptied by the next day.9 Rayne was certain they were not short on rent but did not have time to argue, as they had another exam in a few days. Plus, they did not know who to make a complaint to because they did not have a signed lease, and did not want to risk getting Terri evicted. Rayne was pretty sure the landlord evicted them for asking too many questions about the building’s maintenance.10
Rayne met the landlord the next day to gather their belongings and load them into their car. The storage room was accessible by anyone in the building, so when Rayne got there, their belongings had been picked over. Their bed was gone and their internet modem was missing. Luckily Rayne still had their laptop, but they would be charged a few hundred dollars for the modem itself.11 Rayne sat in their car, loaded with what little belongings they had left, not knowing where they would go next.
Rayne was pretty sure the landlord evicted them for asking too many questions about the building’s maintenance.
2.Privately owned rental units
Tenancies and a tenant’s rights to their personal belongings are governed by a large number of provincial and municipal statutes, the most relevant of which being provincial residential tenancies legislation. Tenants’ rights and their rights to their personal belongings are also affected by local bylaws such as fire bylaws,12 building standards bylaws,13 or bylaws specific to housing.14 In some jurisdictions, municipalities are moving towards amending ticketing and licensing bylaws to allow for some municipal involvement in housing in accordance with provincial residential tenancies legislation.15
In both the jurisdictions of Ontario and British Columbia, rights apply in a wide range of tenancy situations. Determining if an agreement amounts to a tenancy will have significant impacts on an individual’s rights regarding their personal belongings. In Toronto, tenants are often unsure about their rights and avoid acting on what rights they may have for fear of losing the only affordable housing they can access. This is largely caused by a lack of clarity regarding applicable enforcement entities and the misalignment of local bylaws with provincial landlord-tenant legislation. Similarly in British Columbia, although tenants in SRAs, supportive housing, and unofficial tenancies can access the BC RTA, lack of clarity regarding tenant rights in these settings mean that tenants and their personal belongings continue to be vulnerable.
Ontario Municipalities
Ontario’s Residential Tenancies Act16 (ON RTA) outlines certain rights held by tenants in regard to their belongings, including specific requirements on landlords at the end of a tenancy. These rights are held by anyone in a tenancy agreement laid out in the ON RTA, which includes verbal tenancies,17 and those living in multi-tenant housing.18 Exceptions, however, include multi-tenant housing where tenants and the owner live in the same building while “shar[ing] a bathroom or kitchen facility with the owner” or owner’s family.19
The ON RTA protects a tenant’s rights to their belongings by preventing a landlord from interfering with a tenant’s occupancy of a rental unit (s 22) and preventing a landlord from entering a rental unit without notice in most cases (ss 26-27). An individual’s belongings must not prevent the reasonable enjoyment of other tenants, or put the health and safety of tenants or the landlord’s property at risk (ss 64, 66). For example, a landlord could apply to the ON LTB for an eviction order if they determine that an accumulation of a tenant’s belongings (commonly referred to as ‘hoarding’) amounted to a risk to person or property. If it could be determined that the accumulation of belongings was associated to a person’s mental or physical disability, the Ontario Human Rights Code would require the landlord to accommodate the person to the point of undue hardship.
The ON RTA requires a landlord to hold a tenant’s belongings for 72 hours after an eviction has been enforced by the Sheriff.20 After this period, as long as the tenant was not prevented by the landlord in accessing their belongings, the landlord may proceed to sell, keep, or dispose of the property.21 In the event that a unit was abandoned, a landlord must hold or store the tenant’s property for 30 days before being able to sell, keep, or dispose of the property.22 In most other situations of an ended tenancy, such as a written notice by either party, landlords can immediately sell, keep, or dispose of a former tenant’s personal property upon the tenant vacating the premises.23
Multi-tenant housing (also known as ‘rooming houses’ or ‘dwelling houses’) are tenancies characterized by shared facilities, usually kitchens or washrooms, between three or more people who pay rent individually.24 In the districts of the City of Toronto and Etobicoke, multi-tenant housing is permitted under zoning bylaws—in Toronto through the Municipal Licensing and Standards (MLS) division, and in Etobicoke through Toronto Public Health (TPH). In the district of York, multi-tenant homes are permitted with no licence required.25 However, within the City of Toronto’s districts of East and North York and Scarborough, multi-tenant housing is not permitted, but nonetheless continues to operate.26
For rooming house tenants in Toronto, a city with varying licensing schemes and overlapping provincial and municipal regulations, accessing residential tenancy rights is complicated and impacts people’s ability to maintain control over their belongings. For example, a tenant in an unlicensed rooming house is technically able to access the Landlord Tenant Board through rights laid out in the ON RTA, regardless of whether it is in a district that permits rooming houses. However, many rooming house tenants in unlicensed housing avoid formal complaints mechanisms even when exposed to substandard conditions. This is often because of a lack of awareness of their rights27. In a complicated system of overlapping laws, bylaws, and rules, tenants are unclear of whether they are covered under the ON RTA
or if they are required to report issues to municipal enforcement entities. Additionally, rooming house tenants often avoid reporting issues to the provincial residential tenancies office out of fear that doing so could flag the tenant’s unlicensed rooming house to the city with a risk that it could be shut down, thereby risking a loss of housing with few affordable alternatives.28
In fact, the majority of complaints filed about rooming houses in Toronto came from neighbours, suggesting that the enforcement mechanisms which are underused by tenants are more often used in ways that increase their housing precarity and risk displacement.29Fraser v Beach30 demonstrates that neighbours or property owners are not able to seek eviction for illegal rooming house tenants through the courts, as the Landlord Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction in granting evictions.31 However, as seen in in Davies v Syed,32 tenants of illegal rooming houses can effectively be evicted by a third party through a court-ordered injunction if the rooming house is violating municipal bylaws or other laws. As such, the precarity of tenants of illegal rooming houses is increased both by lack of effective access to enforcement measures under the ON RTA and also by being the targets of enforcement by third parties.
Living in licensed and authorized multi-tenant housing allows a tenant to access their rights with less concern of putting themselves and their housing at risk.33 However even rooming house tenants in licensed buildings are subject to an “unclear complaints process” between the city’s MLS branch and TPH, the Landlord Tenancy Board, and the Rooming House Licensing commissioner.34 The complex and bureaucratic reality of Toronto-area rooming house regulations means that tenants subject to those rules live under a complicated, unclear regime that increases the precarity of their housing situation, including the degree of control they have over their belongings.
British Columbia
The British Columbia Residential Tenancy Act35 (BC RTA) and Residential Tenancy Regulation36(BC Regulations) requires a landlord to store a tenant’s belongings for 60 days if the belongings are considered to be abandoned. Although there are some variables to determine whether property has been abandoned, a landlord is not required to store abandoned belongings if they have a value under $500, if the value of the items is less than the cost of storing and selling them, or if the landlord “reasonably believes that the storage of the property would be unsanitary or unsafe.”37 If a landlord obtains a writ of possession from the BC Supreme Court, tenants have two days to collect certain items including clothing, medical and dental aids, and tools or property used to earn income, after which court bailiffs have authority to remove and sell the tenant’s belongings.38 Similar to Ontario residential tenancy legislation, in BC, a landlord can end a tenancy if an individual (and therefore their belongings) jeopardize the health or safety of the landlord or other occupants, or puts the landlord’s property at significant risk.39 For example, an accumulation of a tenant’s belongings that is deemed excessive (commonly referred to as ‘hoarding’) that amounts to a risk to person or property could be grounds for a landlord to seek an eviction. If it could be determined that the accumulation of belongings was associated to a person’s mental or physical disability, the BC Human Rights Code would require the landlord to accommodate the person to the point of undue hardship.
Much of the low-cost and affordable housing options in Vancouver are single-room accommodations (SRAs) which include rooming houses and single-room-occupancy hotels (SROs).40 SRAs can be owned privately or by a non-profit organization, and provide minimal quality of housing usually consisting of a small room with a basic cooking setup and shared bathroom.41 Tenants of SRAs are covered by British Columbia’s Residential Tenancy Act42. which protects them from landlord seizure or interference with access to their belongings, unless the landlord has court authorization or the tenant has abandoned the unit (s26).
In Vancouver, the city’s role as regulator of SRAs through the Single Room Accommodation By-law and through health and safety bylaws such as the Standards of Maintenance By-law, Building By-law, and Fire By-law all have implications on SRA tenants and their belongings. SRO tenants generally lack information, resources, and support regarding tenancy rights when facing evictions or dealing with maintenance and privacy issues.43 Relatedly, illegal SRA management practices and power imbalances between tenants and owners create feelings of fear and insecurity among SRO tenants which could impact their ability or safety in approaching the Residential Tenancy Branch.44 Some SRO tenants have expressed fears of asking for minor repairs for justified fear of “backlash or potential eviction”.45Given the small size of SRO units, tenants can easily be accused of hoarding by landlords. The various City bylaw schemes combined with provincial BC RTA can lead to confusion among SRO tenants as to the most effective way to access their rights. This has led Housing Vancouver to call for a more accessible, transparent complaints process with the City, including an improved system for SRO tenants to access documents of notices of violation that could be used as evidence at the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB).46 These factors suggest that although Vancouver SRAs are part of BC RTA legislation, that tenants are not always able to access their rights to protect themselves and their personal property due to power imbalances, and lack of access to tenant rights supports. Evidence from front line workers also indicate that RTB arbitrators lack an understanding of the realities of SRO lives, and the heightened precarity of SRO tenants.
3.Publicly owned rental units
Publicly funded and publicly run supportive housing tenancies provide individuals with certain levels of security for their belongings. However, the determination of whether an accommodation is covered under residential tenancy legislation can have significant impacts on a person’s right to their personal property. For example, in one Ontario Landlord Tenant Board (LTB) case,47 a housing provider believed they were exempt from the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act (ON RTA) as a transitional housing program and evicted a tenant and disposed of his belongings. The LTB found that the program was not transitional housing, and thus that the eviction and disposal were illegal. However, this was after the person’s belongings were already lost. In cases where landlord-tenant legislation does not apply, residents have to rely on arguably less accessible forms of mediation such as small claims court or human rights tribunals, depending on the issue.48
Supportive housing is “long-term or permanent living accommodation for individuals who need support services to live independently”.49 In British Columbia, although the BC RTA officially applies to supportive housing,50 most supportive housing providers have argued that they are exempt from landlord obligations under the BC RTA, asserting their services to be transitional housing, “a housing based health facility that provides hospitality support services and personal health care”,51 providing rehabilitative or therapeutic treatment,52 or under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act.53 By claiming that their living accommodations and services are not governed by landlord-tenant legislation, supportive housing providers can attempt to avoid accountability in the same way as traditional landlords when it comes to interacting with tenants and their belongings,54 allowing providers to handle tenants’ belongings without abiding by the same obligations required of private landlords. Supportive housing projects commonly assert that their residents are subject to “program agreements” rather than tenancy agreements, in an attempt to maintain a level of control over the space with rules they could not otherwise implement under a regular tenancy agreement. Notably, however, residential tenancies legislation in both BC and Ontario clearly state that landlords may not avoid or “contract out” of the legislation or regulations.55
In PHS Community Services Society v Swait, the housing provider argued that the facility was exempt from the BC RTA as a “living accommodation in a housing based health facility that provides hospitality support services and personal health care”56 and therefore could enforce tenant guest restrictions contrary to the BC RTA. The court affirmed an arbitrator’s assertion that the tenancy was subject to the BC RTA, and thus the tenant was entitled to the rights of having guests without restriction. While supportive housing applies to the BC RTA, there are times where even the RTB has difficulty determining whether the living accommodation falls under landlord-tenant legislation.57
Suites that are considered unauthorized or illegal because of their lack of compliance with municipal bylaws still apply under the BC RTA if the tenant can prove that a tenancy exists.58 Similarly, although landlords are required to provide a written tenancy agreement, the lack of a written document does not preclude a landlord from having obligations and responsibilities under the BC RTA.59
4.Storage in rental units
Storage is a significant issue for precariously housed and unhoused individuals. In a study of residential evictions of people who use drugs, for example, participants described how they would be threatened with eviction due to an accumulation of possessions and would be the targets of nuisance complaints related to their possessions.60 One woman spoke of the difficulties she faced when moving between rooms of different sizes, creating a disparity between the large amount of possessions she had and the decreased amount of space she could fit them in, which eventually resulted in the landlord evicting her.61 Further, though landlords have particular obligations when it comes to storing belongings that have been left behind by tenants, participants in the previously mentioned study reported that landlords were frequently disposing of whatever belongings the tenants could not bring with them when evicted, and they even reported that the landlords would threaten them with the destruction of their personal property to compel them to vacate their units.62. Where tenants do not vacate their units, landlords and property managers may get court bailiffs to remove a person’s possessions, as was the case in Dawson where the tenant was unable to get any of her treasured belongings back.63 When facing eviction, precariously housed people have limited options for storing the belongings that they can hold onto. Some possessions may be sold to offset any debts that the owners have.64
Public storage lockers may be an option for some people. Storage locker leases however have conditions on the kinds of possessions that can be stored, like flammable materials, illegal substances, perishable goods, and anything that could emit fumes.65 Many storage lockers are also specifically designed to discourage people from using storage lockers as a form of shelter by, for example, not installing power outlets or lights in units.66 Many if not most storage locker tenancy agreements will make non-habitation of the unit a condition of the lease.67 There are also some other barriers to accessing a storage locker; for most leases, a tenant must have two pieces of ID (and in some cases a current address)68, and there is the issue of having the means to transport possessions to a storage locker and the ability to remove them from the site at a later date. If a person can no longer afford their storage locker, stops paying, and does not have the means to remove their possessions from the locker, the contents are likely to go to auction.69
Sidebar
The idea of living in a storage locker is a serious consideration for some people. When there are few affordable housing options, living temporarily in a climate-controlled shelter that is private and provides a secure space for one’s belongings can seem inviting. In 2017, a Vancouver man posted a video of a complex living set up he had constructed for himself in a U-Haul storage locker for $205 per month.70 Over the course of the guided tour of his space, the man shows an extension cord he ran from the hallway to provide his unit with power, his hotplate, TV, bed, drawers that he built under the bed, and a mechanism to provide himself with running water. He said he spent about $100 on hardware, which included installing several wooden fixtures to help him organize his possessions and live efficiently within the small space for the two months he was there. While the man claimed that facility staff knew he was living there and were tolerating him so long as he kept a low profile, U-Haul spokespeople stated that he was evicted before the video was posted online. The end of the video and a subsequent video on the man’s channel show that he had found an apartment to live in.71While there is little context from the video about the man’s circumstances which led to him living in the storage locker (the titles of his other videos show an affinity for DIY projects), he is most certainly not the only person who has lived or currently lives to some degree in a storage locker. Regardless of whether someone is between apartments and wants to save money, or has experienced an eviction and feels they have few other options, a person’s circumstances and the ability to be close to their belongings can be crucial in considering their options for shelter.
5.Yards and Private Green Spaces
Bylaws may apply to belongings located on private space, for example: tenants with yard space, and people living on another’s property with the owner’s permission (for example in a tent or vehicle in the owner’s yard). The visibility of their belongings on private property and the prospect of both formal enforcement and informal social pressure can have an impact on the security of their ability to continue living in a particular space.
Trespass to land occurs when a person intrudes upon another’s private property without permission from the owner. Trespass law also applies to objects that have been placed on land without the owner’s permission.72 Some permission to intrude onto another’s property can be implied (e.g., walking on a pathway to deliver a parcel), but if that person remains on the property after the owner asks them to leave, they are trespassing.73 The remedies for trespass can be an injunction or damages (compensation). In Ontario, the Trespass to Property Act sets out that any person who enters property without express permission from the owner and does not leave when directed to do so is committing an offence.74 In B.C., the Trespass Act similarly sets out that it is an offence to enter enclosed land or engage in a prohibited activity on that land.75 In practice, these statutes authorize a property owner to take legal action against a person who is on or has left their belongings on the property or has not vacated the premises when asked. Both private and public property owners (e.g., municipal governments) also have the right to take legal action against a person who does not vacate or stop engaging in certain activities on the premises.
Municipal bylaws further regulate which activities are permitted on both public and private property.
Ontario Municipalities
Property maintenance and standards bylaws in Ontario often use both objective and subjective language to describe the kinds of objects and materials that are prohibited from being placed on private property. The property standards section of Toronto’s Municipal Code uses objective language to require property owners to keep their yards clear of dilapidated, collapsed, and unfinished structures, as well as wrecked and discarded vehicles.76 The same section goes on to use more subjective language to require property owners and occupants to keep properties in “clean and sanitary condition” and keep them clear of junk, rubbish, refuse, litter, and other debris.77 These subjective criteria can disproportionately impact those who are lower income, precariously housed, particularly in light of societal stigma towards poor and marginalized people, including people experiencing homelessness, a disproportionate number of whom are Indigenous.
As in Toronto, the City of Ottawa’s Property Standards bylaw employs some language that is drafted in a way that could be interpreted subjectively. The bylaw prohibits appliances, objects, and conditions in yards which could cause a health hazard or an accident hazard.78 However, the bylaw also prohibits the accumulation of materials and objects that create unsafe or unsightly conditions, and that are deleterious to the neighbouring environment.79 Any objects that meet these descriptions are to be removed from private property.
British Columbia Municipalities
The B.C. municipalities surveyed in this report have similar property standard bylaws to those in Ontario. Vancouver’s Untidy Premises bylaw prohibits property owners and occupiers from allowing the accumulation of discarded materials, rubbish, filth, and garbage on their property.80 Owners are provided with 10 days notice to remedy the issue if they are in contravention of the bylaw.81 Vancouver’s Standards of Maintenance bylaw also requires private land to be kept clear of rubbish and debris, and wrecked vehicles cannot be stored or left on any land.82 The City of Abbotsford’s Good Neighbour bylaw contains more subjective language, prohibiting property owners from allowing their property to become or remain unsightly
through the accumulation of rubbish, derelict vehicles, appliances, or other discarded materials that can be visible to passersby or from neighbouring properties.83 Property occupiers are specifically required under the bylaw to keep the general appearance of rental premises to the standards of similar properties in a neighbourhood.84
The City of Victoria’s Property Maintenance bylaw differs slightly from each of the bylaws above because it provides an explicit definition for what is meant when something is considered “unsightly.” The bylaw defines “unsightly” as a state that is untidy or the otherwise non-aesthetic accumulation of filth, junk, and refuse on a parcel of private property.85 However, this definition still seems to remain highly subjective in terms of what is considered “junk” and “refuse.”
6.Legal decisions impacting people’s belongings in rental housing
Conflicts in residential tenancies are formally addressed through administrative tribunals; the BC Residential Tenancy Branch Dispute Resolution Services (“BC RTB”), and the Ontario Landlord Tenant Board (“ON LTB”). Administrative decisions by the BC RTB and ON LTB can be challenged upon judicial review to the BC Supreme Court and Ontario Superior Court Justice respectively. As administrative tribunals, the BC RTB and ON LTB make a significant number of decisions on a yearly basis and are not bound by previous precedent cases in the same way that courts are.86 As such, this section focuses on caselaw and other legal decisions outside of the residential tenancies tribunals, which impact the belongings of people living in tenancies, with a particular focus on municipal decisions and related court decisions.
Type of tenancy and other remedies
The designation of whether a property is a tenancy can have implications on whether a person and their belongings are subject to the protections that exist in residential tenancy legislation. In PHS Community Services Society v Swait,87 the court affirmed the decision of the BC RTB that the supportive housing program was subject to the BC RTA despite a supportive housing provider arguing that the facility was exempt as a “living accommodation in a housing based health facility that provides hospitality support services and personal health care.”88 While this case revolved around the right to have guests without restrictions, it demonstrates that designation under or exemption from residential tenancies legislation can similarly impact the few protections that tenants’ belongings are afforded under landlord-tenant laws.
Further, the designation of whether a property is a rooming house can have even more important implications on tenants’ protections related to their belongings. Rooming houses that are covered under residential tenancy legislation are still often understood by tribunal members as spaces where tenants “cannot expect the same level of privacy that they would enjoy if they rented their own apartment”.89Fraser v Beach demonstrates that rooming houses that do not conform with municipal bylaws but still fall under landlord-tenant legislation cannot be evicted
by neighbours’ applications to the Superior Court because the jurisdiction to order eviction is granted exclusively to the ON LTB.90 However Davies v Syed demonstrates that other civil actions such as injunctions can be used to effectively evict tenants through an order for the closure of rooming houses that do not comply with municipal bylaws. This means that although tenants of rooming houses, and their belongings, are protected under residential tenancy legislation, rooming house tenants in certain jurisdictions are still subject to legal mechanisms that can put their tenancies and their belongings at risk.
Despite this reality, whether or not a person is found to be a tenant does not necessarily prevent them from seeking remedies outside of the residential tenancies legislation for lost or destroyed belongings. In Khachatryan v Sookedeo,91 the Khachatryans purchased a home in which the Sookedeos were living. Having not moved out by the agreed vacancy possession date, the Khachatryans removed the Sookedeo’s furniture, clothing, mattresses, family photos, and electronics. The items were placed outside on the ground without any covering and were eventually damaged by the rain. The trial judge found that the Sookedeos were tenants and thus their belongings were protected under residential tenancy legislation. However, the court held that even if the Sookedeos were not covered under a tenancy, the Khachatryans, as the party that had purchased and therefore controlled the property, had an obligation to “maintain the integrity”92 of the Sookedeos’ personal belongings under the tort of bailment. The Khachatryans were held liable for damages to the Sookedeos’ personal property up to $25,000.
In seeking remedies outside of residential tenancies legislation for lost or damaged belongings, however, tenants need to be careful to consider the jurisdiction of courts. In Tuka v Butt,93 a tenant made a counter-claim on a small claims court action. The counter-claim included the loss of personal property she claimed was wrongfully retained by the landlord after eviction. Because the landlord acted within the ON RTA that permitted the disposal of belongings after items were made available for 72 hours after eviction, and because the ON LTB had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter,94 the Ontario Small Claims Court had no jurisdiction over the claim related to the loss of her personal belongings.95 As seen in French v H&R Property Management,96 as long as a landlord complies with its obligations under the residential tenancy legislation, “it will not be liable to any person for selling, retaining or otherwise disposing of a tenant’s property.”97
Municipal roles and jurisdiction in tenancies
While residential tenancy legislation falls under provincial jurisdiction, municipal bylaws and licensing schemes can have direct impacts on housing considerations such as affordability and evictions, thus impacting tenant stability and rights to their personal belongings. In the current housing affordability crises, some municipalities have used their regulatory powers to address local housing needs. The Ontario Human Rights Commission calls on municipalities to consider human rights frameworks and consult Human Rights Code-protected populations when drafting, reviewing, and monitoring bylaws.98 Municipalities have a unique role in addressing an ongoing housing crisis. By leveraging their position and aligning their bylaws with both human rights codes and provincial tenancy legislation, municipalities can promote access to stable and affordable housing, and subsequently, stability in people’s ability to maintain their personal property. This type of municipal involvement in tenancy regulation has raised constitutional and jurisdictional debates in the courts, some of which are outlined below.
New Westminster’s bylaws regarding renovictions, Vancouver’s bylaws regarding rental licenses, and Toronto’s discussions regarding multi-tenant housing bylaws, demonstrate that municipalities can use their jurisdiction and adjust their bylaws to make meaningful impacts on the rights of individuals and their property, in the tenancy context or other housing arrangements. Conversely, as we see in Penticton, when municipalities make decisions contrary to provincial mandate, legal conflict ensues, and precariously housed individuals experience increased precarity. Municipalities may also try to resist regulating rentals, as seen in the example of Toronto’s rooming house regulations.
Toronto: Rooming House Regulations
In October 2021, the City of Toronto delayed voting on new rooming house regulations that would implement a consistent city-wide zoning scheme to multi-tenant homes across all districts, including those where multi-tenant housing is currently prohibited.99Failing to develop consistent mechanisms to regulate multi-tenant homes throughout the city, and continuing a ban on multi-tenant homes in certain areas where they still continue to exist, risks “driving operators and tenants underground”.100 This perpetuates situations where tenants are less able to safely access their rights, thereby “creating further risks to safety [which] disproportionately [affect] equity seeking groups”.101 The act of prohibiting multi-tenant housing in certain pockets of the city “falls short”102 of the Ontario Human Rights Code and could lead to a human rights challenge “over the current inequity in rules and protections” for tenants living in multi-tenant homes in Toronto.103
New Westminster: Renovictions
In 2020, the municipality of New Westminster, British Columbia, part of Metro Vancouver, amended its Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Bylaw104 to restrict ‘renovictions’. Renovictions include the “eviction of tenants under the guise of performing major renovations on units and then significantly increasing the rent on those units”.105 Shortly after the amendment, a landlord looking to perform renovations on a 21-unit building challenged the municipal bylaw, arguing that the bylaw’s actions fell under the authority of the provincial BC RTA and thus outside of municipal jurisdiction.106 The British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) held that the City had the right to regulate renovictions at a local level through its powers of the Community Charter107 in part because the BC RTA is not exhaustive legislation in regards to rent control and evictions. A leave to appeal the BCCA decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada.108 New Westminster’s recent bylaw amendment demonstrates that municipalities can creatively legislate in the field of tenancies and the maintenance of affordable housing stock, as long as the provisions “supplement and do not contravene those of the [BC RTA]”.109 Given the risk to tenants’ belongings associated with evictions, this is an important move.
City of Vancouver: SRA Vacancy Control
For many years, Vancouver housing advocates and some city officials have been advocating to the provincial government to include vacancy control provisions for SRO units in the BC RTA.110 This reflects the particular vulnerability of SRO residents, including their possessions, to evictions. Currently, the BC RTA regulates what is an allowable rental rate increase during a tenancy, but does not regulate rate increases between tenancies. In 2018, the Provincial Rental Housing Task Force opted not to recommend vacancy control legislation tied to the unit rather than the tenant, rooted in the concern that this would limit new rental construction and cause landlords to remove rental stock.111. However, the province has shown no opposition to the City of Vancouver implementing vacancy control measures on SRO hotels exclusively, arguing that SROs are to be phased out entirely in the coming years.112
In November 2021, Vancouver city council voted to approve a vacancy control policy that capped rental rate increases for SRAs at the rate of inflation, and tied this policy to the unit rather than renter.113 This move, preventing landlords from increasing rent between tenants, was promptly challenged in court by several owners of SRA buildings.114 In two separate actions, several landlords claim the City’s bylaw amendments are outside of municipal jurisdiction and conflict with the provisions of the BC RTA. Citing the province’s 2018 decision not to implement vacancy control, it is argued that this regulation “by omission” is demonstrative of the City’s inability to create bylaws in the same field.115 Additionally, the court challenge by SRA owners suggests that the bylaw amendments directly conflict with landlords’ positive rights regarding rent hikes currently laid out in the BC RTA.116The challenges go further and accuse the City of both unreasonable and bad faith dealings in amending the bylaws by “effectively requiring… SRA owners to subsidize low-income Vancouverites”117 and purposefully attempting to reduce the value of properties the City has open plans to purchase.118The City of Vancouver asserts that it has jurisdictional authority to implement vacancy control under the provincial legislation of the Vancouver Charter119 which authorizes the City to regulate and impose terms and conditions on business license holders.120 Only if the new bylaws create a situation where landlords are unable to comply with both the BC RTA and city bylaws, the City asserts, would the bylaws be inoperable.121 In August 2022, the British Columbia Supreme Court agreed with the landlords, determining that the City does not have authority to impose licensing regimes regulating rent control, and made an order to quash the bylaws.122 The city has filed an appeal.123
Penticton and Provincial oversight
In March 2021 the BC provincial government used statutory immunity provisions to overrule the rejection by Penticton city council for a BC Housing application for a temporary use permit to a temporary shelter for forty-two residents.124 According to BC’s Interpretation Act, the province is exempt from any municipal or provincial enactments that pertain to land use and development.125 BC Housing applied for the temporary use permit out of courtesy, but based on this exemption is not bound by city permits and bylaws.126Penticton city council subsequently filed a challenge to the BC Supreme Court, questioning the province’s use of the exemption powers.127 Upon announcing that BC Housing found an alternative location for the shelter, the City of Penticton withdrew their suit against the province.
While the situation in Penticton arises from a debate about a permit for a shelter rather than permanent housing, it demonstrates the unique position of municipal governments in discussions of housing and homelessness: using their own jurisdictional powers to respond to (or avoid responding to) local housing realities, while straddling provincial policy and legislation. The province’s decision to override Penticton city council could set a precedent for future provincial engagement with other municipalities, thereby impacting municipal ability to respond creatively to compounding issues in the fields of housing and homelessness.
7.Limitations of residential tenancies legislation
In the cases where residents are aware of their rights through landlord-tenant legislation, particular limits remain as to the effectiveness of these statutes in protecting people’s rights to their personal belongings. These limits include reactive rather than preventative responses, lack of collaboration between government systems, difficulties in presenting evidence in claims, and discretion given to landlords.
Residential tenancies legislation and complaint processes, while more accessible than many other forms of judicial procedure, are largely reactive rather than preventative. Although the “purpose of adequate notice and due process” in the termination of a tenancy “is to prevent loss of property when a tenancy is terminated”,128 it is common that people approach mediation through residential tenancies offices after they have been evicted, have become homeless, or have lost their belongings. Attempts to intervene before this point can often be fruitless. As seen above, many people living in precarious housing situations such as rooming houses or SROs live under a complicated, overlapping enforcement system and are often unclear of where to go to address issues in their tenancies. Additionally, some police forces have non-intervention policies regarding illegal lockouts and forced evictions, thereby preventing tenants from claiming their space and possessions in the moment of an illegal eviction or other adverse emergency housing situation.129 Even in jurisdictions where police may intervene and mediate difficult tenancy terminations, many marginalized and racialized populations living in precarious housing situations may not feel safe interacting with law enforcement, further requiring tenants to rely on reactive public policy mechanisms such as residential tenancies legislation to uphold their rights. This reality has led advocates to call for amendments to the BC RTA to increase the Residential Tenancy Board’s investigative and administrative powers to prevent problems before they escalate.130
Another limit to existing landlord-tenant legislation is the lack of coordination between government systems and landlords or landlord-tenant legislation entities. For example, a determination of abandonment of property can have significant impact on a landlord’s right to remove or dispose of a tenant’s personal belongings. Personal situations such as incarceration or hospitalization can mean that a tenant is not able to communicate with landlords regarding their absence, which can often lead to “an eviction, or at minimum coming back into a precarious housing situation because rent was behind or roommates had moved on.”131 For example, in Holewell v Lally132 a tenant was given an eviction notice after 10 months of hospitalization due to a breakdown in communication with the landlord around rent abatement related to unit renovations. Although there was a debate regarding the cause of rodent problems leading to necessary renovations, the tenant’s inability to move his belongings in part due to his hospitalization and disability eventually contributed to his eviction. Connected to police non-intervention policies, since public and social services systems are not designed to work in conjunction with landlords, landlord-tenant legislation, or its entities, tenant stability and personal property rights are thereby impacted.
Residential tenancies legislation in some jurisdictions also leaves significant amounts of discretion in the hands of landlords when determining how to proceed with the storage or disposal of a tenant’s belongings. For example, according to British Columbia’s Residential Tenancy Regulation133 a landlord can dispose of belongings determined to be abandoned if they deem them to have a total market value under $500, or if they reasonably believe them to be unsanitary or unsafe.134 Similarly in Ontario, a landlord can immediately dispose of “unsafe or unhygienic items” if determined abandoned.135 Unclear guidance means that significant discretion is given to landlords regarding what they can do with a tenant’s property in certain situations.
In the event that an issue reaches a residential tenancy hearing, evidence can also be a barrier to successful claims of lost property.136 Providing sufficient evidence of lost or damaged property at the hands of a landlord can include photos, receipts, or other means.137Many tenants are not able to produce such evidence, especially in instances where a person’s entire belongings have been seized or disposed of by a landlord. Further, a tenant’s inability to provide evidence that their living situation amounts to a tenancy agreement can restrict their ability to recover damages from damaged or discarded personal belongings.138 In some cases where landlords fail to provide proper notice regarding the termination of tenancy, hearings have acknowledged the impossibility of providing such evidence and have taken this into account when making a decision in assessing damages.139
8.Conclusion
Provincial and municipal legislation both have direct impacts on a person’s tenancy and their rights to their personal belongings. Residential tenancy legislation offers certain protection to tenants, however gaps remain, especially for people in precarious housing situations where there is a lack of clarity of tenant rights and inherent power imbalances in what is often the only affordable housing available. Provincial and municipal legislation that does not align leads to a patchwork of response mechanisms that leaves tenants either under-protected, unaware of what their rights are, or unclear of where to go to assert their rights to housing and their personal belongings. Municipalities are in a unique position to creatively use their bylaws to fill gaps left by provincial legislation, allowing them to respond to the housing crisis in a localized fashion. Finding ways for all levels of government response to complement one another may be an important step in addressing an ongoing housing crisis and ensuring tenant and landlord rights are clear, transparent, and equitable.
Appendix: Legal Cases
Tenancies - Legislation and Regulations Impacting People’s Possessions
To outline rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants including what constitutes a tenancy, steps to be taken at the beginning of a tenancy, how to act during a tenancy and how to end a tenancy.
To ensure that people can participate equally in economic, social, political and cultural life by forbidding discrimination based on certain personal characteristics in areas of daily life.
To establish minimum standards of maintenance for rental units and residential properties for the health, safety and protection of tenants and existing rental stock, and better regulation of residential rental businesses.
To outline rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants including what constitutes a tenancy, steps to be taken at the beginning of a tenancy, how to act during a tenancy and how to end a tenancy.
To ensure that people can participate equally in economic, social, political and cultural life by forbidding discrimination based on certain personal characteristics in areas of daily life.
Is a supportive housing facility a tenancy and therefore subject to the Residential Tenancy Act? Or is it exempt as a “living accommodation in a housing based health facility that provides hospitality support services and personal health care”?
The court determined that the decision of the residential tribunal branch was correct when finding that the supportive housing project was subject to the residential tenancy legislation. By restricting Mr. Swait’s access to guests, PHS violated his tenancy rights
While this case revolved around the right to have guests without restrictions, it demonstrates that designation under or exemption from residential tenancies legislation can similarly impact the few protections that tenants’ belongings are afforded under landlord-tenant laws.
Can the Superior Court order an eviction of tenants of an illegal rooming house?
Rooming houses that do not conform with municipal bylaws but still fall under landlord-tenant legislation cannot be evicted by neighbours’ applications to the Superior Court because the jurisdiction to order eviction is granted exclusively to the ON LTB.
Can the Superior court grant an injunction to order the closure of rooming houses that do not comply with municipal bylaws?
Although the Superior Court cannot order evictions, injunctions can be used to effectively evict tenants through an order for the closure of rooming houses that do not comply with municipal bylaws. This means that although tenants of rooming houses, and their belongings, are protected under residential tenancy legislation, rooming house tenants in certain jurisdictions are still subject to legal mechanisms that can put their tenancies and their belongings at risk.
Do other legal remedies exist for the loss or damage of personal belongings outside of residential tenancy legislation?
Even if a party is not a tenant, but merely an occupant and therefore not covered under a tenancy, in some instances the tort of bailment may apply.
Case: Tuka v Butt, 238 ACWS (3d) 972, 2014 CanLII 7228 (ON SCSM), French v H&R Property Management Ltd, 2018 ONSC 769
Relevant Issue
Outcome
Can a tenant bring an action in small claims regarding the loss or damage of personal property related to a tenancy?
In Tuka v Butt, because the landlord acted within the ON RTA that permitted the disposal of belongings after items were made available for 72 hours after eviction, and because the ON LTB had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, the Ontario Small Claims Court had no jurisdiction over the claim related to the loss of her personal belongings.
French v H&R Property Management states that if a landlord complies with its obligations under the residential tenancy legislation, “it will not be liable to any person for selling, retaining or otherwise disposing of a tenant’s property.”
Does the city’s bylaw restricting renovictions fall under the authority of the provincial BC RTA and is therefore outside of municipal jurisdiction?
The city has a right to regulate renovictions at a local level through powers given to it in the provincial the Community Charter, in part because the BC RTA is not exhaustive legislation in regards to rent control and evictions. Municipalities can creatively legislate in the field of tenancies and the maintenance of affordable housing stock, as long as the provisions “supplement and do not contravene those of the [BC RTA]”.
Does the city have jurisdiction to approve a vacancy control policy that ties rental rate increases for SRAs to the unit rather than renter? Does the City of Vancouver have jurisdictional authority to implement vacancy control under the provincial legislation of the Vancouver Charter which authorizes the City to regulate and impose terms and conditions on business license holders?
The court held that the City does not have authority to impose licensing regimes regulating rent control, as this is the exclusive jurisdiction of the province. The court made an order to quash the bylaws.
1. See Statistics Canada, “To buy or to rent: The housing market continues to be reshaped by several factors as Canadians search for an affordable place to call home”, (21 September 2022) online.
2.Residential Tenancy Act, SBC 2002, c 78, s 2 [BC RTA]; Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 17, s 3 [ON RTA].
3. Housing Vancouver, “Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Revitalization Action Plan” (November 2017), online (pdf): City of Vancouver at 5 [Housing Vancouver].
4. The stories described at the beginning of each chapter are not real-life stories of specific individuals. They are composites of experiences that people have described regarding the ways in which they navigate a variety of laws, bylaws and policies that impact their ability to retain their possessions or access services with their belongings. These stories reflect the experiences of real people who have shared their experiences, whether as individually identifiable people or as participants in studies that have contributed to knowledge on this issue. The elements that make up the stories are derived from multiple municipalities, so it would be inaccurate to name a particular municipality in any of them. The relevant body of research concerning these kinds of experiences focuses on particular areas in which people have been impacted, rather than on their entire experiences moving across different spaces.
5. See TNT-43402-13-RV (Re) (10 March 2015), online: ON LTB [43402].
6. See Emily Paradis, “Saving room: Community action and municipal policy to protect dwelling room stock in North American cities” (November 2018), online (pdf): Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust at 7, for description of statistically common rooming house tenants.
7. See ON RTA, supra note 1 at s 2(1); see BC RTA, supra note 1 at s 1. See e.g. Decision 6699 (2 September 2015), online (pdf): BC RTB Dispute Resolution Services[6699].
8. See Maytree, “A Human Rights Review of Toronto’s Multi-Tenant Homes Policies” (October 2020), online (pdf): Maytree at 14 [Maytree].
12. Both municipal bylaws and provincial codes. See e.g. Vancouver Fire Bylaw No 12472; Ontario Fire Code,O Reg 213/07.
13. See City of Vancouver, by-law No 5462, Standards of Maintenance By-Law (17 September 2014), online (pdf) at s 4.1. [Vancouver Maintenance Bylaw].
14. See Toronto Municipal Code, c 285, Rooming Houses, online (pdf): at s 349-6(B) [Rooming House Code]; City of Vancouver, by-law No 8733, Single Room Accommodation By-law (10 December 2020), online (pdf) [Vancouver SRA Bylaw]; City of Victoria, by-law No 20-091, Rental Property Standards of Maintenance Bylaw, online (pdf).
15. See City of New Westminster, by-law No 6926-2004, Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Bylaw (16 November 2021), online (pdf) [New West Bylaw]; City of Vancouver, by-law No 4450, License By-law (7 June 2022), online (pdf) ; City of Vancouver, by-law No 9360, Ticket Offences By-law (7 June 2022), online (pdf).
17. See 6699, supra note 7; TNT-11384-10 (Re) (10 May 2011), online ON LTB [11384].
18. See Emily Paradis, “Saving room: Community action and municipal policy to protect dwelling room stock in North American cities” (November 2018), online (pdf): Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust at 9.
20.ON RTA, supra note 1 at s41(2). See also Tribunals Ontario, “Property left behind when a tenant moves out” (4 January 2010), online (pdf) [Tribunals ON 1].
21. See Tuka v Butt, 238 ACWS (3d) 972, 2014 CanLII 7228 (ON SCSM) online at paras 40-46 where tenant’s counter-claim for damages for loss of personal property at the hands of landlord was rejected because of ON RTA s41 that permits landlord to dispose of belongings as long as items are made available for 72 hours after eviction. No evidence of breach of duty or interference with tenant’s ability to retrieve belongings meant the landlord was entitled to dispose of the tenant’s belongings.
22.ON RTA, supra note 1 at s42(3). See also Tribunals ON 1, supra note 20.
23. Community Legal Education Ontario, “Can your landlord take your stuff?” (March 2017), online (pdf) ; Tribunals ON 1, supra note 20.
24. Municipal Licensing and Standards, “Multi-Tenant (Rooming) Houses: Owner Guide” (November 2020), online (pdf): City of Toronto.
25. City of Toronto, “Multi-Tenant House Owners & Operators: Where Multi-Tenant Houses Are Permitted” (last accessed 26 March 2022), online: City of Toronto.
31. See ibid at para 15. Note this decision was made regarding the now repealed Tenant Protection Act, 1997, SO 1997, c 24, as repealed by Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 17.
47. See SOT-91560-18 (Re) (12 June 2018), online : ON LTB.
48. See Semenoff v Many Ways Home Housing Society, 2021 BCCRT 362 [Semenoff] online ; Chehresaz v Khalesi, 251 ACWS (3d) 144, 2015 CanLII 8736 (ON SCSM) [Khalesi] online.
51. See PHS Community Services Society v Swait, 2018 BCSC 824 online at para 33; See BC RTA, supra note 1 at s 2(1)(v).
52. See BC RTA, supra note 1 at s 2(1)(vi). See also Decision 1164 (14 July 2009), online (pdf): BC RTB Dispute Resolution Services, where tenancy that included provision of methadone was considered therapeutic service and thus was exempt from BC RTA.
53. SBC 2002, c 75; See e.g. Decision 6148 (9 September 2021), online (pdf): BC RTBDisputeResolutionServices [Decision 6148].
54. See Decision 1814 (2 August 2011), online (pdf): BC RTB Dispute Resolution Services.
55. See BC RTA, supra note 1 at s 5; See ON RTA, supra note 1 at s 3.
60. Taylor Fleming et al, “Housing in Crisis: A Qualitative Study of the Socio-Legal Contexts of Residential Evictions in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside,” (2019) 71 Intl J Drug Policy 169 at 172.
63.Dawson v Boundary Management Inc (No. 2), 2020 BCHRT 177 (CanLII) [Dawson] online at para 71.
64. Nicholas Blomley, Alexandra Flynn & Marie-Eve Sylvestre, “Governing the Belongings of the Precariously Housed: A Critical Legal Geography,” (2020) 16 Ann Rev of Law & Soc Sci 165 at 168 at 167.
65. See e.g different policies put forth by storage locker providers: Maple Leaf Storage (Vancouver), “FAQs” (last accessed 30 September 2022) online, XYZ Storage (Toronto), “Things you can’t store” (last accessed 30 September 2020) online; Acceptable Storage (Ottawa), “Frequently Asked Questions” (last accessed 30 September 2022) online.
66. See Maple Leaf Storage, ibid; Pockit Self-Storage (Abbotsford) online.
67. XYZ Storage, supra note 52. The website recognizes the issue of unaffordable housing while emphasizing its policies: “as tempting as it may seem for the rates that storage units go for, [living in a storage unit is] unsafe (and illegal).”
68. See e.g. Public Storage in Vancouver which requires tenants to be 19, have valid government photo ID with a current address, as well as a credit card, Public Storage Canada, “FAQ Storing” (last accessed 30 September 2022), online.
69. Storage locker auctions are commonplace, and there are entire websites dedicated to tracking available storage locker contents that are being auctioned. See e.g. Bid13, “Storage Auctions in British Columbia” (last accessed 30 September 2022), online; I Bid 4 Storage, “Find an Auction” (last accessed 30 September 2020), online. An American teenager recently made headlines for buying the contents of multiple storage lockers at auction and subsequently tracking down their owners to return their possessions: Cathy Fee, “A Teen Buys Repossessed Storage Units at Auction, Then Gives the Contents Back to the Original Owners”, The Washington Post (16 June 2021), online.
70. Mike Laanela, “U-Haul Evicted Man Living in Vancouver Storage Locker”, CBC News BC (13 January 2017), online; 007craft, “Living Out of a Storage Locker for 2 Months, In Style!” (12 January 2017), online (video): YouTube.
71. “007craft” (accessed 22 June 2021), online: YouTube.
72. CED 4th (online), Trespass, “Trespass: Trespass to Land: General” (II.1.) at §29.
98. Ontario Human Rights Commission, “Room for Everyone: Human rights and rental housing licensing” (2013) online (pdf): at 12 [Room for Everyone].
99. David Rider, “John Tory suffered a rare loss at Toronto council over legalizing rooming houses. An inside look at a move that baffled and outraged housing critics”, Toronto Star (26 October 2021) online.
111. City of Vancouver, “Vacancy Control Regulations in Single Room Accommodation (SRA) Designated Properties” (4 November 2021) online (pdf) at 9 [Vacancy Control Report]
114. See 0733603 BC Ltd v Vancouver (City), Vancouver Law Courts Petition, File Number 220082 (7 January 2022) [Abbott St] online; Pender Lodge Holdings Ltd v Vancouver (City), Vancouver Law Courts Petition, File Number 220064 (6 January 2022) [Pender].
120. See Vacancy Control Report, supra note 328 at 10.
121. See 0733603 BC Ltd v Vancouver (City), Vancouver Law Courts Petition Response, File Number 220082 (25 February 2022) online at 58; Pender Lodge Holdings Ltd v Vancouver (City), Vancouver Law Courts Petition Response, File Number 220064 (25 February 2022) at 37.
122. See 0733603 BC Ltd v Vancouver (City), 2022 BCSC 1302 online at para 94.
123. Chad Pawson, “B.C. Supreme Court quashes Vancouver bylaws limiting rent increase between single occupancy housing tenancies”, CBC News (5 August 2022), online.
124. Katie DeRosa, “Attorney general will overrule Penticton city council on closure of homeless shelter”, Vancouver Sun (18 March 2021), online.
125. See Interpretation Act, RSBC 1996, c 238, s14(2) online.
126. Shelby Thom, “BC Housing wants City of Penticton’s lawsuit over emergency shelter tossed out”, Global News (26 September 2021), online.
127. Brennan Phillips, “Update: Minister Eby ‘disappointed’ over Penticton council’s decision to go to court over homeless shelter”, Penticton Western News (7 July 2021) online.
128.TNT-64667-14 (Re) (27 January 2015), online: ON LTB [emphasis added] [64667].
129. See Robert Tarantino, “Creating Conflict: Legal Strategies for Housing the Homeless in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside” 28 Windsor Rev Legal & Soc Issues 109.
130. See “BC’s Residential Tenancy System: 13 Recommendations for Positive Change” (2013), online [BC RTA Recommendations].
131. Marianne Quirouette et al, “Conflict with the Law’: Regulation & Homeless Youth Trajectories Toward Stability” (2016) 31:3 Can JL & Soc’y 383.
136. See Decision 2319 (14 August 2012), online (pdf): BC RTB Dispute Resolution Services; see also Decision 1695 (6 January 2011), online (pdf): BC RTB Dispute Resolution Services.
137. See TST-57219-14-AM (Re) (18 February 2016), online: ON LTB at 58.
138. See Decision 6148 (9 September 2021), online (pdf): BC RTB Dispute Resolution Services[Decision 6148].
140. The ‘Purpose’ of each law is often stated directly in the preamble or body of the law and is understood as the general objective of the law from the perspective of law makers. This purpose does not necessarily consider the ways the effects of the law may diverge from their stated purpose, and how this inevitably impacts people in precarious housing situations.
