Ontario landlord must pay Muslim couple $12,000 for not removing shoes.
- Thread starter Galseigin
- Start date
No, they just made two perfectly reasonable requests: call us five minutes before you get here, and take off your shoes. I would make the same requests.
I believe if I were a tenant and a landlord tried to enter my home with dirty shoes on that I would be entitled to use reasonable force to remove him. I believe I would win in court. His conditions of entry are not absolute.
The request was reasonable without regard to religion. The couple were also able to show that shoes are not permitted in a prayer area by their religion so in addition to the cleanliness reasons why many people require shoes removed, they had a religious reason. That went to increasing the damages by demonstrating greater harm to them than to others.
They were also able to show a pattern of racist behavior.
And your "just sweep your fucking floor" comment is rude and wrong. You can't sweep dogshit from a carpet.
The landlord's reply reads to me as if the tenant's accusation was accurate though provocative. Be that as it may, the fines were for improperly interfering with the tenant's ordinary and proper use of his home by ignoring their inoffensive and understandable requests for useful notice and removal of shoes. These were clearly two individuals at odds Even the brief article makes it clear they had a history of not getting along, and at least one, if not both, was determined to win, no matter what the cost, no matter how much easier it would have been to just get along. There's an infinite number of less deliberately provocative ways for the landlord to assert his lawful position.
But on that actual matter itself: If it was unreasonable to ask for a heads-up — five minutes and an hour were both asked for and refused — just prior to the landlord wanting in, would it have been unreasonable for the tenant to refuse entry, before or after the 24 hour time, to the precise minute the landlord specified? Assuming he was the unusual sort who would specify any tighter than say, "early afternoon", when he gave his 24 hour notice.
As for "just sweep the fucking floor", the shoes in the family's prayer room: Imagine if an atheist landlord grabbed a little crucifix off the kitchen wall and used it as a stir-stick in his latte. "No harm done, I fucking washed it off and hung it back". Or wiped the booger off his finger on the Bible. Then tell us no one should fuss.
However unreasonably the tenant put it, what he asked for was not unreasonable to ask of any visitor to his home, and it was clear he asked because of his religion. The tribunal found the landlord abused his powers unreasonably and interfered with his tenant's reasonable practice of his religion in his own home. If you don't have a right to that, you have no religious right worth the name.
The landlord doesn't have to give notice 24 hour notice here are the rules:
A landlord can enter a rental unit without written notice, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. if:
the landlord or tenant has given a notice of termination, or they have an agreement to end the tenancy, and the landlord wants to show the unit to a potential new tenant (in this case, although notice is not required, the landlord must try to tell the tenant before entering for this reason).
Does anyone know if the pretend judgr belongs to the same group or system as the human rights commission?
A landlord can enter a rental unit without written notice, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.
All he needs to do is tell him is that he's coming in...not worth $12.000 and the harm that this couple has done ...
And all the tenant asked for was a heads-up — an hour, or even five minutes — sufficient to let his wife clothe herself as she preferred. Exactly what this part of the law says the landlord must try to give. (I bolded the relevant bit from whatever landlord-friendly site you excerpted. Tenant-oriented ones summarize the same section somewhat differently, but the message is clear either way)
However, the landlord refused that easy access and went to the next section of the Residential Tenancies Act (quoted with my emphasis and elisions):
Entry with notice
27. (1) A landlord may enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry under the following circumstances:
1. To carry out a repair …
2. To allow a potential mortgagee or insurer…to view the rental unit.
3. To allow a…qualified person to make a physical inspection of the rental unit to satisfy…subsection 9 (4) of the Condominium Act, 1998.
4. To carry out an inspection of the rental unit, if,
i. the inspection is for the purpose of determining whether or not the rental unit is in a good state of repair and fit for habitation…, and
ii. it is reasonable to carry out the inspection.
5. For any other reasonable reason for entry specified in the tenancy agreement. 2006, c. 17, s. 27 (1).
Same
(2) A landlord … may enter a rental unit in accordance with written notice given to the tenant at least 24 hours before the time of entry to allow a potential purchaser to view the rental unit
Not one of those reasons actually applied here. What he clearly intended was to be as un-accommodating as possible, giving up his legal right to easy access at any time, as long as he tried to give reasonable notice — as you pointed out — in favour of the unfounded claim that after giving 24 hours notice in writing he had no further obligation.
It was his way of saying, "Welcome to Ontario, Canada!"
So once again,...A religious need,...trumps actual Canadian law.
As decided by a racist white pretend judge against a black guy.
FAST
He needs to notify them of his intention. That is entirely consistent with their request for five minutes notice. He was completely in the wrong.
In addition to his failure to satisfy the entry condition, his right of entry does not entitle him to damage their goods such as by walking on a prayer rug with shoes on.
The $12,000 will appropriately deter him and others from the committing similar violations in future.
No. The supreme law of Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Constitution was upheld. The landlord not only infringed on the Charter right of his tenants to practice their religion in their home as they preferred, but he didn't give them the proper treatment the Ontario tenancy law prescribes.
They banned Phill. He probably can't reply to you.
Came across this last night, it's really interesting and they made some amazing points!! It's long but it demonstrates exactly what is happening in some parts of our world.
Who are "they", and what about "them" makes their demonstration anything more than amazing — everything's amazing these days, don't you find?
I appreciate your warning, even short videos take way more time than simply reading the words. And if you're reading you can click and Google directly to check the grounds for any assertion you find incredible (i.e unbelievable). Since it doesn't look like it's actually on topic, could you please be a bit more specific about why it is? And why we should invest that long time in it.
That's actually not true, sweetiepie.
I've written reviews in the past. Something which you have never done
Just watch it OJ. It's really worth it. Way to much for me to type out. I may a little later but right now I don't have the time.
It looks like racist alt right propaganda to me. I clicked through and watched a free seconds here and there: it's just a bunch of angry white guys making unsubstantiated claims without proper references (we're supposed to take their word for everything).
Once again you've been duped by YouTube bullshit.
