Tenancy battle Part 2
City halts demolition of apartment building
A lawyer representing a Halifax man whose apartment was destroyed Friday after his landlord started demolition of the building says she’s considering all legal options in response.
“Evicting someone by demolition, it’s not something you’d see very often,” said Tammy Wohler, a Nova Scotia Legal Aid lawyer in Halifax. “It’s very disturbing and there needs to be some accountability for this.”
The man, who asked that we use only his first name Andrew, is challenging his eviction that was originally set for November. He has a residential tenancy board hearing with his property owner Ardmore Hall Ltd scheduled for Dec. 16. On Friday while he was out of his apartment building on the corner of Oxford and North Streets, a demolition crew was brought in. An excavator tore through his apartment and the one above it.
TWO DAYS AFTER FLOODING
The move came two days after, he said, his apartment was flooded after a man showed up at his door identifying himself as a plumber. Ardmore Hall issued an email statement that day denying that the flooding was intentional and that repairs were needed to the hot water lines in Andrew’s apartment.
Andrew, who was in Dartmouth at the time of the demolition, declined to comment on the situation Friday because he said he was too exhausted by the ordeal.
Mosaik Properties, Ardmore Hall’s parent company, has plans to replace the three-storey Halifax apartment with a seven-storey, 130-unit building. In preparation for demolition, a metal fence was placed around the perimeter of the property on Tuesday.
Halifax Regional Compliance officers showed up to the property at about noon Friday. The municipality was able to get a stop work order of the demolition through the province’s Labour Department. The order has no expiry date. But the demolition continued for roughly two hours after the officers showed up.
‘LOST EVERYTHING’
Wohler said the developer simply decided it would be easier to forgo the legal process and proceed with the demolition of the building.
“Andrew was asserting his right and as a result and quite frankly he’s lost everything,” said Wohler.
Andrew told the Chronicle Herald this week that he’s challenging his eviction because he believes no one should lose their home in a pandemic. But he also has legitimate legal grounds to contest his eviction because he never received a notice to quit, only several letters telling him to move out by the end of November. Landlords must also obtain an order to vacate from the residential tenancies board if a tenant challenges the notice to quit.
Andrew received a notice to quit Thursday, the same day Wohler agreed to represent him at his hearing later this month.
“The tenant is entitled to live there and it looks like the landlord has taken matters into its own hands ignoring the fact that there is a very simple process set out to ask for an eviction if warranted.”
Wohler is urging the city to take action against the developer.
MAYOR VERY CONCERNED
Mayor Mike Savage said he’s very concerned by the incident. He could not explain why a demolition permit would be issued with someone living in the building and while the company hasn’t followed the proper channels to evict tenants.
“My view is that action should not have been taken until the residential tenancies process was complete,” said Savage.
“We didn’t want this to happen, and we issued a stop-work order,” said Savage.
He said the HRM’S looking into what legal action the municipality can take against the developer.
Wohler said she hopes the municipality ultimately sends a strong message to the property developer.
“They need to make sure that they do not inadvertently condone an action by a landlord that violates the Residential Tenancies Act,” she said. “If the city were to allow a landlord to demolish an apartment while being aware that there is a tenant in the apartment and who has a legal right to live in the apartment but there’s no order to terminate the tenancy that would be problematic.”
Mayor Mike Savage said he’s very concerned by the incident. He could not explain why a demolition permit would be issued with someone living in the building and while the company hasn’t followed the proper channels to evict tenants.