‘Failing renters’
Halifax man staves off renoviction
He knew something bad was brewing.
For five years, Jeremy Van den Enyden shared his apartment with his pet dog Memphis.
It wasn’t a secret. During that time his property manager Kim Cicchino knew about it, he said. She had no problem with the arrangement.
But then last fall, he got a text message from Cicchino. He was given an ultimatum: get rid of his dog or face eviction. His property manager explained that his lease agreement said no dogs were allowed and she was enforcing the rules.
“Honestly, Jeremy my hands are tied because the lease states no dogs,” wrote Cicchino. “Normally if a tenant breaks a lease rule then I can move to evict immediately, but I'm trying to work with you.”
Except there was no prohibition on dogs. Van den Enyden dug out a copy of the lease he signed seven years ago before he moved in. It didn’t even have a pet policy.
He shared the proof with Cicchino and she relented.
Van den Enyden started to worry. Cicchino’s spouse, John Fraser, is president of the company (Fife Holdings) that owns the building. Van den Enyden worried that the couple would try to force him out.
He had reason to be concerned.
OUT IN THREE MONTHS
Two weeks later, a sign appeared taped to the entrance of his 18-unit apartment building in north-end Halifax. The Oct 8, 2022 notice was addressed to everyone in the building.
Effective immediately, the building was under new management, stated the notice. The letter didn’t include a contact person or a company name, just an email matching the address of the building. Tenants were told to send all communication to this email.
By the end of the month, Van den Enyden and every tenant received another notice. This time the correspondence included the name of the new property manager, Eric Kent. Kent was letting everyone know that they had three months to find another place to live. They were to be out by the end of January.
Kent explained that when management changed hands the building underwent a “full inspection” and “condition assessment.”
The result wasn’t good.
“Unfortunately, (they) indicated significant damage to the property and multiple repairs that are required .... The extent of the necessary work will require that the building be fully vacated by January 31 2023.”
The letter contained no details from the inspection and assessment reports. Nor did it explain what repairs needed to be done to the building. Van den Enyden believed he and his fellow tenants were being renovicted.that is when a landlord forces tenants out of a building so it can be renovated and generally rented out for a lot more money.
NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO FIGHT
He decided to stay and fight. Van den Enyden had no other choice. He works as a metal fabricator and pays $790 a month for a one-bedroom. He says he can’t pay $2,000 a month, the average going rate for a newer one-bedroom apartment in Halifax.
“I’m a single, working person; I can’t afford that kind of money for a place to live,” he said.
“I’d have no quality of life. I’d be working to pay rent and not getting ahead in life. I think what I’m paying here is a fair rent.”
More than a year and a half later, he’s still fighting to keep his home. He’s one of two people still living in the building. He won that right last month with a small claims court decision that the renoviction was illegal. More on that later.
Still, he’s not out of the woods yet. The landlord has appealed the court decision.
RENTERS ‘ARE ON THEIR OWN’
But Van den Enyden’s beef is with this province’s residential tenancies board. He says people who rent in Nova Scotia are on their own and the board is “failing renters” by not upholding their rights.
That’s because this province does not enforce protections
under the Residential Tenancies Act. Other provinces, such as Ontario and British Columbia have dedicated investigation units that enforce tenancy laws. He says Nova Scotia needs to follow their lead.
“So, if a landlord comes and says we’re going to move for renoviction, the tenancy board has to say, OK, then you need to prove that to us. We’re going to come in and inspect the building and see if you are doing this legally,” said Van den Enyden. “Why is this not happening in Nova Scotia? ”
NOW REQUIRED BY LAW
In March 2021, the Nova Scotia government lifted a temporary ban on renovictions but added some new protections in the tenancies act. One in particular was sold as a powerful tool that would prevent landlords from evicting tenants under the guise of renovation.
If landlords wanted to evict a building to do renovations they were required to prove that kicking everyone out is necessary. The new law stated that landlords must prove to the tenancies board “that it has the necessary permits and approvals ‘required by law’ and that the landlord in good faith requires possession of the residential premises for the purpose of making repairs or renovations so extensive so as to require a building permit and vacant possession of the residential premises.”
The problem is that the tenancy board has no mechanism to investigate landlords. If there were, Van den Enyden wouldn’t be fighting to keep his home, he says. He would have been able to report the renoviction notice to the tenancy board and have someone investigate. An investigation would have determined that the renovations being planned for the building didn’t justify kicking everyone out, he argues.
A landlord in this province can simply tell their tenants the renovations are extensive enough that they must go. They don’t have to go through the tenancy board. That is unless a tenant, like Van den Enyden, refuses to leave and challenges it.
NOT GOING ANYWHERE
When it was clear Van den Enyden wasn’t going anywhere, Fife Holdings moved to evict him. In mid-december, the company filed a Form J application with the tenancy board. Only then was the landlord required to explain why the building needed to be vacant.
Saltwire obtained a copy of the application that included those details. The company stated there had been severe leaking in the building through the roof, siding and windows for more than a decade. Because of this, the company claimed there was damage to the interior of all apartments in the building, including the electrical and mechanical systems. The building needed to be stripped down, which required everyone to be out.
Van den Enyden finally got his chance to challenge the renoviction at a tenancies board hearing Jan 30, a day before the company wanted him and everyone else out.
In the weeks before the hearing, mail stopped being delivered to the building. Van den Enyden asked why and eventually Canada Post’s ombudsman investigated. The ombudsman’s findings showed that someone told Canada Post to stop delivering there because the building had been condemned.
We asked Kent the property manager in an email whether anyone had cut off postal deliveries. He did not reply.
Van Enyden did not have much time to prepare for the tenancy hearing. Kent emailed him the evidence the property manager would be sharing, six days before the hearing.
THE HEARING
Fife Holdings’ evidence centred on 31 photos illustrating what appeared to be minor damage to various parts of the building. The exhibits showed some water bubbling in the ceiling of a unit, a partially rotten window frame and mould on a section of siding. Other photos showed patches of missing shingles on the roof, cracked caulking around windows and balcony doors. A copy of the building permit was also included. It allowed for work to the interior and exterior of the property, ranging from replacing bathroom vanity and plumbing fixtures to replacing flooring and lighting.
Maureen Acker, the tenancy officer adjudicating the case, was persuaded by the evidence. Acker sided with Kent and the company. She ordered Van den
Enyden out of the building.
“The landlord provided proof, on a balance of probabilities, that the removal of siding, roofing material, plumbing and electrical required to renovate the building to the extent required, would render it uninhabitable,” Acker said in her decision.
Van den Enyden appealed. The small claims court adjudicator Blair Mitchell had a different perspective of the landlord’s evidence.
“In sum, the photographs were not convincing that the occurrence of leaking was widespread through the occupied levels of the building,” said Mitchell. “The landlord produced no technical industry evidence to suggest the extent of any rot, plumbing concerns, mould or any need for widespread reconstruction of the building’s roof or beyond one or two demonstrated smaller areas the existence of possible widespread water infiltration through balcony doors or at windows.”
GETTING OTHER OPINIONS
Van den Enyden produced four written statements from four different contractors who inspected the building. They determined that the building was in good shape, including the roof and fire system, and that any repairs wouldn’t require emptying the building. While the adjudicator didn’t put a lot of weight on those assessments, he said they warranted a better argument from the landlord to explain why the building needed to be empty.
“(That’s) particularly so where in this appeal the onus to establish exactly that lies on the landlord and it was not produced,” said Mitchell.
LAWS NEED ENFORCEMENT
Wayne Mackay, a Dalhousie University law professor, says the case clearly illustrates why the province needs to start enforcing
its tenancy laws.
“It’s a good demonstration of the long, complicated and timeconsuming process that faces anyone fighting to uphold their tenancy rights,” said Mackay. “The act needs revision and there needs to be more investment of resources to hire people that are going to investigate and enforce the act.”
The province says it’s looking into it. Last November, the Nova Scotia government hired a consultant to examine whether the province should create an Ontario-style enforcement system for landlords and tenants, in which trained officers would advise parties on disputes and have the power to issue fines.
Blaise Theriault, a spokesperson for Service Nova Scotia, said work on a compliance and enforcement division is underway.
He wouldn’t say when this might happen or what the enforcement regime might look like.
“Creating a new enforcement system is complicated and, as with every change we make, we want to make sure we fully understand the impacts and implications for both tenants and landlords, and that we take the time to do it right,” said Theriault.
Mackay says that’s not good enough. The absence of any enforcement offers more evidence that the government is not responding effectively to the complexity of the housing crisis, said Mackay. “Yes, we need more affordable housing but the government needs to be dealing with the current situation and people struggling to keep the housing they have.”
As for Van den Enyden, the fear of homelessness looms. His landlord has hired a lawyer to appeal the small claims court decision. Van Enyden will continue to represent himself.
“Since October my life has been turned upside-down,” he said. “I can’t enjoy life. It’s affected my work, my personal life, my sleep. Everything.”