A Places for People (P4P) founder and board member says her “hair is lit up” trying to understand what the Ontario government’s newly-enacted Bill 10 means for landlords when it comes to tenants and drugs.
The Bill received royal assent June 5. It basically says a landlord can’t knowingly permit a property to be used to produce, or traffic, drugs. The landlord can offer a defence that they took reasonable measures to prevent the activity. Failure to do so, however, could result in a first conviction fine of between $10,000 and $250,000 and, or, two years’ jail time. For corporations, such as P4P, it could mean a fine of $250,000 to $1 million on first conviction.
The province, in a press release, said, “new legislation is … being introduced to ensure landlords are held responsible for knowingly permitting their premises to be used for unauthorized drug activity. Any proposed requirements for landlords will only take effect once the Act and regulations come into force, at which time more guidance for landlords will be provided.”
The Highlander reached out to MPP Laurie Scott for comment but had not heard back from her as of press time. However, a spokesperson for Minister for the Solicitor General, Michael Kerzner, said, “to be clear, Bill 10 ensures landlords who knowingly allow the illicit production and distribution of illegal drugs on their property will be held accountable.” The spokesperson added, “we continue to work on regulations that will provide further guidance for landlords.”
Martin: ‘reasonable measures’ not defined
Martin has been trying to decipher the Bill, saying there’s been no guidance yet for landlords such as P4P.
“The Bill says that landlords can be fined significant amounts of money … for having a tenant undertake illegal activity in their units and they would be protected if they used ‘reasonable measures’ to prevent the activity,” she said. But Martin said ‘reasonable measures’ have not been defined.
Martin: ‘reasonable measures’ not defined
“From an on-the-ground point of view, you’re very limited in terms of how invasive you can be. You can’t knock on the door and say ‘hello, I’d like to come in and see if there is any illegal behaviour happening in this unit’. The tenants can say ‘no.’ Even police can’t do that unless they have a warrant.
“How am I supposed to know whether what’s happening in there is illegal activity?” Martin said she could go in and do a unit inspection, and perhaps see evidence of drug use, but would not know if it is illegal activity. For example, she said she does not know the difference between a methadone or heroin shot, or what an insulin injection needle looks like.
“Can I phone the police and say ‘I was just inside my tenant’s house and there was some dodgy stuff there. I think it might be illegal. Do they come? I’m not sure they would.”
Overall, she said the new provincial rules are “expecting landlords to do the impossible, and it’s a downloading of the responsibilities of law and order.”
Martin added, “the bottom line is, we need housing. We need rental housing. We’ve got a huge housing problem. If we’re going to solve that problem, everybody needs to lean in and do their part. This makes it incredibly more difficult.
“If you do rent, even under this circumstance, you are not going to take anybody that has any kind of risk. Anybody who needs a chance to turn the page and start a new life, you’re going to say ‘geez, I’d like to be helpful but I can’t afford to. I can’t take the risk’.”
The Canadian Mental Health Association says it’s not possible to know how the law will impact housing providers until it starts being enforced. They said it may deter landlords from renting to people who use drugs, and discourage them from working with supportive housing providers.
“Some landlords may try to evict current tenants if they think the law could expose them to penalties – placing an additional demand on an already over-burdened Landlord and Tenant Board and worsening the homelessness crisis.”
The CMHA said there are also concerns the law places “a disproportionate administrative burden on non-profit and supportive housing providers, organizations with minimal funding that are already under-staffed.
Tenant allowed to stay
Martin points to a Jan. 21 police bust at P4P’s George Street, Haliburton property.
Police executed a warrant and said they found multiple firearms, ammunition, other weapons and suspected drugs. A man was eventually charged with a number of offences, including possession of a Schedule 1 substance.
At the time, Martin said it seemed the accused had been living in an existing tenant’s apartment. She said the organization was aware of problematic, possibly illegal, activity at the site and notified police.
However, Martin said the finding of drugs likely only occurred as police went in due to suspected weapons.
P4P tried to evict the tenant but were unsuccessful. Their case was heard June 25, but the Landlord and Tenant Board ruled on July 10, the “landlord has proven on a balance of probabilities the grounds for termination of the tenancy and the claim for compensation in the application. However, I find it would not be unfair to grant relief from eviction provided that the tenant meets the conditions set out in the order.”
The tenant argued she had no knowledge of weapons or drugs and the other party would not be coming back. Conditions include that he not return and she not allow unlawful behaviour.
Martin isn’t sure how P4P can keep tabs on whether the man returns. She added that in facing the new Bill 10, “the thing that makes my hair light up is the contradiction between ‘we can’t even evict’, but we’re responsible for not evicting. That just kills me.”
