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.”

After responding to a pair of non-fatal boating incidents on two County lakes last weekend, Haliburton Highlands OPP is preaching the importance of implementing good habits to stay safe on the open water.

Police confirmed a 20-year-old from Bobcaygeon was charged with impaired operation following a boating collision on Kennisis Lake July 27. Three individuals sustained non-life-threatening injuries after the boat they were travelling in struck an island during the early hours of the morning.

Two days earlier, on July 25, emergency services attended an incident at Horseshoe Lake Road and Bethel Road in Minden following reports that two people were ejected from a watercraft at the Minden Whitewater Preserve, resulting in injuries.

One person was retrieved from the water with a suspected back injury, with the second sustaining a suspected leg injury.

While all involved avoided ultimate disaster, Haliburton Highlands OPP Cst. Hillary Newman said bad boating behaviour can cost lives.

The Highlands detachment has officers trained to handle marine investigations, with officers maintaining a strong presence on County lakes through summer. Newman said there are proactive waterway patrols scheduled throughout summer.

“We have so many bodies of water up here, big and small, so it’s important for people to know we’re out there. We don’t want to have to respond to any sort of emergency situation in the water, we want to try to resolve those before they happen,” she said, noting the detachment has its own boating equipment and is routinely assisted by nearby departments.

While she couldn’t provide specific numbers, Newman said impaired boating has been an issue this year.

“We see impaired operation across the board, [for boating] it’s definitely similar to driving,” she said.

“It’s important to note that, for the majority of boats there’s no open alcohol containers allowed. You’re only allowed to drink on the larger vessels, which we don’t typically see on our smaller lakes. “It’s equally important to be mindful of alcohol consumption even before going out on the water. The consequences for impaired boating are the same as for impaired driving – you lose your licence. Even if you’re charged with operating a vessel while impaired, you won’t be able to operate a motor vehicle,” Newman said.

Since 2020 there have been 81 boating fatalities across Ontario. Haliburton Highlands is among the top five detachments for boat-related deaths since 2015, with 10.

The Haliburton detachment puts a strong focus on educating the public about boating safety, Newman said, with lifejackets a top priority.

“It’s not enough just having them on the boat. People need to wear one anytime they’re on the water, and make sure they’re in good working order,” she said. “You’d hate to need it in an emergency and then find out it doesn’t fit or it’s fallen off the boat.”

She said boat owners should also carry a whistle and bucket – to attract attention and divert water in emergency situations.

Newman said it’s also important to keep an eye on small children and inexperienced swimmers around the water.

“It doesn’t take long, and it doesn’t take deep water for tragedy to strike… focus on teaching your kids how to swim. It’s important for kids to be comfortable with water and know their limits. People come into the lakes up here after only swimming in a pool – just knowing about the currents and how quickly things can change is important,” Newman said. “It’s a different world swimming in open water.”

She called on the public to help police keep lakes safe, encouraging anyone witnessing dangerous or erratic behaviour on the water to contact OPP. The non-emergency line is available 24/7 at 1-800-310-1122.

“We have a ton of lakes in our area, so we really do rely on input from the public to direct our efforts,” she said.

Dysart et al council has closed the door on a proposal seeking to temporarily rezone land in Haliburton village, close to Hal High, that would have permitted a three-year glamping operation.

Elected officials voted unanimously to turn down an application from the owners of 77 Wallings Rd. to establish a six-pod glamping service on the 2.2-acre property. During a July 22 public meeting, Kris Orsan, Dysart’s manager of planning, said the applicant was seeking relief of the township’s temporary-use bylaw under Section 39 of the Planning Act to permit the structures, which would be used as shortterm accommodation for vacationers.

The pods are self-contained pre-fab structures designed to sleep two people, with a maximum of 12 people allowed on-site. They would be located at the front of the property, away from the shore of Head Lake.

Savas Varadas, principal planner at Huntsville-based consulting firm Plan Muskoka, which represents the owners, told council he felt the proposal was “fairly low impact” and not unaligned with neighbouring land-uses, which are predominantly residential.

“The glamping pods are fairly nondestructive to construct. They’ll be placed on a platform without the need for a foundation, which makes them easily removed at the end of the three-year period,” Varadas said, noting an existing building would serve as a washroom facility. There is enough parking on site to allow for more than one vehicle per pod.

Varadas added the owner is willing to install fencing and plant trees around property lines, to address public concern, and establish a vegetative buffer around the shoreline.

Coun. Nancy Wood-Roberts was the first to shoot down the proposal.

“This does not meet any of the guidelines [within] Section 39 of the Planning Act – it doesn’t serve a temporary need or broader public interest, it appears to only serve a financial interest of the property owner,” Wood-Roberts said.

She noted the property is zoned, partially, to support residential development, which the community is in desperate need of.

“This is not meeting that guideline. It doesn’t meet any long-term needs of the community. The official plan specifically identifies this type of recreation and commercial use be outside the settlement area. I do find it to be an incompatible use,” Wood-Roberts added.

Neighbours’ concerns

Doug and Mardi Tindal, who own a condo next door at 75 Wallings Rd., opposed the application. While the pair “lean more to YIMBY (yes in my backyard) than NIMBY (not)” they were concerned about possible noise, impacts to groundwater supply and traffic, and potential future-uses.

The couple felt the municipality would have a hard time reacting to noise complaints after regular work hours, when the site would be most frequently used. They also questioned the use of a May 2017 traffic count study, submitted by the applicant and completed two years prior to the construction of their condo building. The report indicated the area could handle increased traffic flow.

“No one who has tried to turn left out of Wallings Road [during summer] would find a May-based study credible… no matter what the year,” the Tindals wrote.

The County, which holds approval authority as the owner of County Road 21, which Wallings Road flows from, had no objections to the proposal.

Pete Mitchell, a director at Haliburton Condominium Corporation, felt the “intrusion and commotion” the glamping operation would bring “simply doesn’t work for us, or the neighbourhood at large.”

Given the pods would be fitted with electric heaters for use through three seasons, Mitchell feared how that additional pressure would impact the area’s weak hydro service.

“We’ve only been provided a phase-one service… the condo building is already challenged to provide additional services to its owners due to power limitations,” Mitchell said.

Varadas asked that the issue be deferred to give his client time to respond to questions and concerns, but council was having none of it. Coun. Pat Casey echoed WoodRoberts’ concerns, saying the glamping feature wouldn’t be a good fit in a high-density residential area. Coun. Barry Boice said he didn’t see any point deferring, believing council was firm in its position.

Deputy mayor Walt McKechnie was worried how the township would police noise and occupancy complaints; mayor Murray Fearrey commented the operation “should be in the bush or rural area, where it belongs,”; coun. Tammy Donaldson said, “it’s a great idea, it’s just on the wrong property,”; while coun. Carm Sawyer also expressed opposition.

“I love camping too, but camping is in the woods not on the main street of town,” Sawyer said.

Algonquin Highlands council has committed to working with Millington’s Big Hawk Lake Marina to address safety concerns along the busiest stretch of Big Hawk Lake Road.

The marina’s general manager, Chris Ewles, told council during a July 17 meeting that he’s worked there for 18 months and has witnessed many near-misses involving vehicles and pedestrians brought on by speeding and dangerous driving.

“The marina is often seriously congested with canoeists, cottagers, staff and visitors… busloads of children from summer camps are frequent… making navigating the area a challenge,” he said, noting traffic from the nearby public beach and boat launch, cottage roads and parking areas exacerbate problems.

Ewles said the situation is becoming so dire he’s worried about staff safety.

“As employers, we have a duty and responsibility to provide a safe work environment… we cannot accomplish this without the township’s support,” Ewles noted.

He posed six solutions to council – reduce the posted speed limit from 50 km/h; establish a community safety zone; install speed bumps; purchase speed enforcement cameras to put in the area; install a stop sign; or a pedestrian crossing.

“I do not feel reducing the speed alone will stop the problem… also consider at least one of the other suggestions as we cannot rely on physical OPP enforcement in this isolated area,” Ewles said.

Mayor Liz Danielsen said the road is very congested during the summer, admitting the township has some responsibility to rectify the issue. As does the marina, which is owned by Algonquin Highlands coun. Sabrina Richards, who recused herself from the discussion. “

I’m looking at this as something we jointly need to look at… certainly, we can’t solve all the problems of all the businesses in Algonquin Highlands [alone],” the mayor said. “There’s an aspect of buyers’ beware. When you buy a marina that is on the road, there’s bound to be problems.”

Ewles said the marina is “absolutely eager” to help the township solve the issue.

CAO Angie Bird suggested installing one of the township’s digital speed signs on the road immediately and direct public works staff to investigate other solutions.

Danielsen warned that, although a serious matter, the issue won’t be resolved quickly. She said staff should take their time to properly consider all options and the costs involved. Bird said a report could be prepared for a meeting in August or September.

“Speed bumps, I’d like to hear from public works about [their effectiveness], then from bylaw on crosswalks, the implications of putting in a stop sign,” Danielsen said. “If there are any other ways of reducing the congestion, I’d look to any and all suggestions on how to go about that.”

Land dispute

Danielsen said she’s also waiting on results of a land survey, which will clearly outline where the marina’s property ends and the township’s begins. The mayor said this had been in dispute for some time, suggesting it would be in the owner’s best interest to pay for and complete the work.

“It doesn’t fix the challenge with speeding and danger… but I have heard the road is on our property, and we don’t know that. A survey will help us guide what we need to do to resolve this problem,” Danielsen said. “There’s definitely a willingness here for us to do something… but without a clear survey showing clear ownership, it really is a challenge for all of us.”

In a follow-up interview, Ewles told The Highlander he’s not sure what such a survey would solve – saying he hasn’t yet initiated one.

“Where we are parking and working on boats is 100 per cent our property, not township. It’s just a matter of whether the road in its entirety is also [our property]. The two situations don’t have anything to do with each other. For one, if we got a new survey, if we established the fact that [the road] is on our land, that doesn’t negate the township’s rights to have the road [there], it doesn’t negate their right to establish whether we put speed bumps down. There’s no advantage to us doing [a survey].”

He suggested if the township wants clarification, then it should pay for the work.

“Citizens and businesses, generally, aren’t expected to foot the bill for these things. If the [township] wants a survey, then it is well within its rights to order one,” Ewles said.