Docstoc

Court File No

Document Sample
Court File No Powered By Docstoc
					                                               1



                                                               Court File No.
                                       ONTARIO
                            SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
      In the matter of a claim under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6

B E T W E E N:
                 JOSEPHINE GREY MACKIE, JEAN MCCARTHY AND
                             CORNELIA HARRISON
                                                         Plaintiffs
                                   -and –

    CITY OF TORONTO and TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION
                                                    Defendants

                                 STATEMENT OF CLAIM

TO THE DEFENDANT(S)
        A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the
plaintiff(s). The claim made against you is set out on the following pages.

       IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting
for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil
Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff(s) lawyer(s) or, where the plaintiff(s) do(es) not have a
lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff(s), and file it, with proof of service, in this court office,
WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in
Ontario.

       If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of
America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are
served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.

        Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of
intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you
to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.

     IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE
GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE
TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO
PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY
CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.

Date ……………………………………                          Issued by: ………………………….
                                                          Local Registrar
                                                          393 University Avenue
                                                          10th Floor
                                                          Toronto, Ontario M5G 1E6
                                          2




                                       CLAIM

1. The Plaintiffs, JOSEPHINE GREY MACKIE, JEAN McCARTHY and CORNELIA

HARRISON, public interest litigants acting on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class

Members, claim the following relief:



    1.1.   An Order certifying this proceeding as a class proceeding and appointing them

    as the representative Plaintiffs on behalf of the class and/or any appropriate subclass

    thereof;


    1.2.   A Declaration that the class is defined as every tenant of Toronto Community

    Housing Corporation (hereinafter TCHC) during the period 2002 to the present time,

    who formally complained to TCHC of a problem concerning disrepair of their rental

    unit and whose complaint was not resolved within two weeks;



    1.3.   A Declaration that the Defendants owed the Class Members a duty of care to

    ensure that Class Members’ housing provided by TCHC conforms to reasonable

    standards as established by legislation, namely, the City of Toronto Municipal Code

    Chapters 397, 447, 489, 497, 629, 719 and 844, the City of Toronto Municipal

    bylaws, the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, Ontario Regulation 217/06 Maintenance

    Standards, Building Code Act, 1992 Chapter 2, the Fire Protection and Prevention

    Act, 1997 including the Fire Code set out in Ontario Regulation 388/97 and the

    standards articulated by the City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards

    Division and the standards articulated in the UN Universal Declaration of Human
                                     3



Rights and the UN resolutions concerning the Right to Adequate Housing that have

been ratified by the government and Parliament of Canada.


1.4.   A Declaration that the Defendants discriminated against Class Members by

failing to ensure the standard of Class Members’ housing when compared to TCHC

tenants who live in private sector housing sub-contracted by TCHC, and in so doing

violated section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;



1.5.   An order pursuant to section 24 of the Charter that the outstanding

maintenance complaints that have been formally registered by Class Members be

resolved within six months;



1.6.    General Damages for each class member for negligence in the amount of

$500.00;


1.7.    General Damages for each class member for breach of Section 7 of the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the amount of $500.00 pursuant to

section 24 of the Charter;


1.8.    General Damages for each class member for breach of Section 15(1) of the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the amount of $500.00 pursuant to

section 24 of the Charter;


1.9.   An accounting of all monies found to be due and owing to the Class Members

and an accounting of the resolution of the maintenance complaints; Costs for

verifying the said accounting.
                                             4




     1.10. The cost for the independent oversight of the distribution of the damages

     recovered by the Class Members in this action and the cost of an independent

     oversight of the resolution of the maintenance complaints;


     1.11. Pre and post judgment interest pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O.

     1990, c. C-43;


     1.12. Costs of this action on a substantial indemnity scale plus applicable tax;


     1.13. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just and

     appropriate in the circumstances.




THE PARTIES

2.      The Plaintiffs represent Class Members who are tenants of TCHC who have made

formal registration of complaints to TCHC about maintenance problems to their dwellings

and whose complaints were not resolved within a reasonable time or at all.


3.      The Province of Ontario enacted the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 (hereinafter

SHRA) establishing the TCHC. The Act mandates TCHC activities, authority, governance

and responsibilities. The Act establishes rent geared to income supplements (hereinafter

“RGI”), including the specific calculation of how much rent TCHC can charge RGI

tenants. The Province of Ontario also funds TCHC, oversees its activities, and is

responsible in law for its difficulties as set out in SHRA s.18.
                                           5



4.         TCHC was created in 2002 as an amalgamation of the former Metro Toronto

Housing Corporation (hereinafter MTHC) and the former Toronto Housing Corporation

that was the Ontario provincial public housing corporation located within the City of

Toronto.


5.         The Defendants the City of Toronto and TCHC together are the landlord of the

Class Members, or alternatively, have oversight powers over the landlord. The City of

Toronto is the legal owner of TCHC and oversees the operation of and helps fund TCHC.


6.         In the SHRA, the Province of Ontario decreed that the City of Toronto was the

service manager of TCHC. The Mayor and two councilors of City of Toronto are

members of TCHC Board of Directors.


7.      TCHC is the largest social housing provider in Canada and the second largest

housing provider in North America.       It provides housing to approximately 165,000

persons. It owns and manages more than 360 high-rise and low-rise apartment buildings

and at least 800 houses and duplexes in the City of Toronto.


8.     TCHC carries out its activities as mandated by the Province of Ontario and the

City of Toronto.


9.     The City of Toronto is jointly and severally responsible for the acts and omissions

of TCHC.
                                           6



THE CLAIM OF JOSEPHINE GREY MACKIE


10.       The Plaintiff Josephine Grey Mackie resides in the City of Toronto, in the

Province of Ontario. She has been a tenant of TCHC or its predecessor City Home since

1984. She is a single mother of four children who have lived with her in this apartment.


11.      The apartment consists of the second floor of a townhouse and rooms on the

third-floor. Ms Mackie also has legal access to the basement which is used as a storage

unit.

12. In 2004 there was a flood in the basement that caused damage to her storage unit.

This has not been repaired. The water damage that was creeping upwards from the flooded

basement was compounded by expanding leaks in the roof.


13. By 2007 the leak from the roof worsened causing the plaster on the walls to crumble,

damaging the electrical system and causing black mould in the bathroom.


14. In addition to the aforementioned deficiencies and disrepair there were the following

defects to the said dwelling; the bathroom door had no door handle or lock, her front door

had no doorframe and could not be locked, her back interior door could not be locked, the

floors in her apartment were unsafe, chipped and crumbling, the stairs in her apartment

were unsafe, her kitchen cabinet doors were in disrepair, the heat in her apartment was

unstable, paint was peeling in all the rooms, numerous windows had been broken and

were not fixed, her exterior windows which are on the second floor of the building were

so dirty that light was obstructed (the dirt is on the outside of the windows and cannot be

reached) and there was no fire escape.
                                           7




15. She registered several complaints with the Defendant TCHC requesting repairs to her

apartment. TCHC failed to repair the deficiencies complained about.


16. As a result of noncompliance with her said requests, she filed a Tenant Application

for Maintenance form; T6, and a Tenant’s Rights Application; T2, with the Ontario Rental

Housing Tribunal (hereinafter ORHT) in November 2006.


17. Days before the T2 and T6 applications were to be heard at the ORHT, TCHC

approached Ms. Mackie and offered her another apartment. She agreed to move to this

apartment and agreed to withdraw her applications to the ORHT.


18. However, when she attended at the proposed alternative apartment she observed that

the said apartment had been infested with mice, was filthy with mouse excrement and was

extremely dirty. She concluded that it would be unhealthful for her to move her family to

this apartment.


19. Therefore she again filed a T2 and T6 application with the ORHT on January 16,

2007. These applications renewed her original complaints.


20. In the interim between the two sets of ORHT applications, two of her children who

were adults moved to independent housing. As a result TCHC said that she was "over

housed”. They said that they would move her to a smaller secure apartment. They also

brought in a contractor to estimate the amount of repairs that were needed for this

apartment. The contractor estimated that there was approximately $30,000 of repairs that

needed to be undertaken that included substantial structural repairs.
                                           8




21. TCHC agreed to undertake those repairs and Ms. Mackie agreed to a mediated

resolution and withdrawal of her second set of applications.


22. TCHC did begin the repairs however the work stopped before the project was

completed. As of July 2007, the repairs were still incomplete. .


23. In July 2007, most of the walls had been repaired but had not been repainted. The

front door, the back door and the bathroom had not been repaired.         The kitchen, the

floors, the windows and the fire escape remained unrepaired or absent. The apartment

remains unsafe as neither the front nor the back door can be effectively locked and the

apartment is still dangerous for fire


24.    This apartment has remained in a state of disrepair throughout the class period.

During this time, Ms Mackie has feared for her family’s health and safety. The plaster and

paint inside the apartment have never complied with the standards established in

legislation. Contrary to the standards set out in the Fire Code, there has never been a fire

escape for this apartment, and contrary to the standards in the legislation the doors and

windows have never been secure.



25. Ms Mackie's children have been harmed when plaster or doors fell on them.


26. The profound disrepair and unsafe living conditions of the said apartment at 56 Rose

Avenue, and the ongoing struggles with TCHC to get those repairs done, have caused Ms.

Mackie and her family significant mental anguish and physical health injury.
                                            9




27. Ms Mackie repeatedly registered formal complaints to TCHC of the said disrepair of

her apartment but the Defendant has not resolved her complaints by making the required

repairs. She continued to complain to TCHC, by filing maintenance requests and by

writing to the Board of Directors of TCHC without redress.


28. The severe disrepair in the apartment forced her daughter to move out of the apartment

and deterred visits from all four of Ms Mackie's grandchildren.


29. Notwithstanding the Defendants’ failure to maintain the said residence as aforesaid,

Ms Mackie maintained payment of her rent of about $1,500 a month during the class

period.




THE CLAIM OF JEAN MCCARTHY


30. Ms McCarthy is a 62-year-old person with disabilities. She has three children and

four grandchildren.


31. Ms McCarthy sufferers from severe respiratory problems. She had heart surgery two

years ago and remains very vulnerable to infectious diseases. She also sufferers from

emotional health disabilities.


32. Ms McCarthy has been a tenant of the Defendant TCHC during the class period and

has been a tenant in this apartment for 15 years.
                                           10



33. On August 3, 2007, a break in the sewage plumbing occurred causing sewage to pour

down the east wall of the building. Ms McCarthy called the superintendent and told him

of the flooding of her apartment but the superintendent ignored her complaint and the

flooding damaged the bathroom, hallway, kitchen and outside wall of her bedroom.

During late August and September 2007, mould developed underneath her kitchen cabinet

and in part of her bathroom. In addition, as a result of the said sewage flooding, there is

water damage swelling the walls in her bathroom.


34. During the months of August through October, Ms McCarthy was hospitalized for

throat irritations on three occasions as a result of inhalation or ingestion of the said mould

in her dwelling.


35. The apartment has been infested with cockroaches that inhabit holes under her

bathroom sink and her kitchen cupboards.


36. She has repeatedly complained to her superintendent and on three occasions, she has

physically attended at the office of the TCHC to register formal complaints about the said

maintenance problems to no avail.


37. On October 11, 2007, with the assistance of counsel, Ms McCarthy filed a complaint

with the Ontario Landlord Tenant Board requesting that the Tribunal order TCHC to

complete the repairs.


38. She also contacted the Toronto Public Health Department about the mould in her

apartment. In November 2007 the Toronto Public Health Department concluded that the

mould had dried up and that there was no residual mould in her apartment. However, the
                                           11



problems of the bulging walls, the holes in the walls, cockroaches and peeling paint

persist to the present time.




THE CLAIM OF CORNELIA HARRISON


39. Cornelia Harrison is a 52-year-old person with a combination of physical or

emotional health disabilities; and is a cancer survivor. She has serious mobility problems

and uses a wheelchair. She is often bedbound. She is in receipt of provincial ODSP

benefits and receives a RGI supplement to allow her affordable housing.


40. Ms Harrison lives in a bachelor apartment in Toronto. She has been a tenant at this

address for four years.


41. Ms Harrison is the mother of three children. Two oldest children are adults and live

independently. Her youngest child is autistic and lives in a group home.


42. The said apartment has had long standing maintenance and defect issues as follows: it

is infested with cockroaches and mice, the parquet floor is in a state of disrepair making it

difficult to move her wheelchair around the room, the bathroom heater malfunctions, the

walls in the apartment are buckling, there is swelling underneath the plaster and peeling

paint, the bathtub is permanently scarred with limestone, her kitchen stove is defective,

the elevators in this building regularly break down. Ms. Harrison has been "stranded" in

her apartment many times. On one occasion, her occupational therapist was stranded in

the elevator for 20 minutes and had to be rescued by the Fire Department.
                                            12



43. Due to the disrepair of her apartment Ms Harrison cannot bring her youngest son to

visit her and cannot have him live with her.


44. During the class period, Ms Harrison has repeatedly complained about the disrepair of

her apartment in person, by phone and in writing to her building superintendent and to the

central St. Jamestown TCHC office.


45. On October 11, 2007, with the assistance of counsel, Ms Harrison filed with the

Landlord Tenant Board a request for a remedial order to repair the outstanding structural

and safety problems in this apartment. This resulted in a mediated agreement in which the

landlord committed to undertaking the necessary repairs. However the landlord

subsequently breached the signed agreement.


46. Ms Harrison has suffered physical and emotional damage to her health as a result of

the conditions of her tenancy in this apartment.




THE DEFENDANTS LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES


47. TCHC was established and is governed by Provincial Legislation through the Social

Housing Reform Act, 2000 (hereinafter SHRA), and its regulations including the Ontario

Regulation 369/01, Amended to. Reg. 75/07 and the Transfer of Administration for

Housing Programs and Projects.


48. The SHRA designated the city of Toronto as the area service manager of social

housing projects within its jurisdiction.
                                             13



49. TCHC is a housing project as defined in s. 2 of the SHRA.


City of Toronto: the Service Manager


50. Through the SHRA, the Province transferred the responsibility for administering social

housing to the City of Toronto. In 2002, social housing became amalgamated into one

corporation, the Toronto Community Housing Corporation.


51. The Plaintiffs assert that the SHRA and its regulations explicitly establish the City of

Toronto as directly responsible for overseeing the administration of TCHC and ensuring

its compliance with the SHRA and its regulations.


52. Further, the City of Toronto is also responsible to report problems with the housing

project to the Province and the Minister.


53. Specifically when a housing project is in crisis the City is required to inform the

Province. SHRA s. 18 requires the City to issue a “ Notice of Project in Difficulty” to the

Province; s. 18 (2) (d) explicitly states that:


         s.18 (2) (d) if the service manager is of the opinion that the housing provider has

         failed to comply with an obligation under this Act and that the failure is material.

         2000, c. 27, s. 18 (2); 2006, c. 32, Sched. E, s. 5 (2).


54. The Plaintiffs assert that the City has been negligent and discriminatory when it chose

not to issue the Notice of a Project in Difficulty that would have triggered the intervention

of the Province Ontario.


TCHC: the Housing Provider
                                          14



55. TCHC was created by the Province Ontario and is Ontario's largest housing provider

as defined by the SHRA


56. TCHC provides the following three types of housing for tenants:


56.1.       Lodgings in buildings that TCHC directly owns and operates,


56.2.       Apartments that TCHC leases from the private sector for profit landlords, and


56.3.       Accommodation that tenants rent from private sector landlords in which

    TCHC provides a rent supplement to tenants.


57. Further, s. 93 and s. 94 of the SHRA establishes that it is the duty of the housing

providers to comply with Provincial and local standards. These conditions include the

operation and maintenance standards housing projects must meet and the provincial

standards of the housing provider’s relationship with specific occupants.


58. The Plaintiffs assert that the SHRA has established an explicit network of governance

in which a specific housing provider reports to both the service manager (Toronto) and the

Province Ontario.


59. The Plaintiffs allege that the SHRA establishes that the Defendants are Class Members

landlord.




NEGLIGENCE,          MISFEASANCE         IN    PUBLIC      OFFICE       and   PUNITIVE

DAMAGES
                                           15



60. The Plaintiffs allege that the relationship between the Defendants and each Class

Member is direct, immediate and individual.


61. Through its agents, the Defendants design and control all aspects of the administration

of the Class Members’ housing.          This includes receiving personal and financial

information from each TCHC tenant for the establishment of eligibility for RGI. This

information is reported to the city of Toronto as TCHC service manager and to the

Province Ontario. How the Defendants are authorized to collecting, use and disclose

tenants personal information is explicitly set out in the SHRA.


62. Further, the landlord receives direct payments from all forms of fixed income

programs including but not limited to Canada Pension and Canada Pension Disability, the

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, the Ontario Disability Support Program, Ontario

Works and Ontario's Office of the Personal Guardian and Trustee.


63. Thus, the Defendants have knowledge of the personal and financial information

concerning all TCHC tenants.


64. TCHC is also directly responsible for the maintenance and repair of Class Members

housing and directly decides how to respond to complaints.


65. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants know that the Class Members were relying

upon the Defendants to provide and maintain their housing.


66. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants know that TCHC tenants are poor and

dependent upon TCHC for shelter and that over 90% of TCHC tenants are on RGI.
                                            16



67. The Plaintiffs therefore allege that each of the Defendants owes each Member of the

Class a duty of care and that they are also liable together as the Plaintiffs landlord for the

maintenance of the class members housing.


68. The Plaintiffs allege that each of the Defendants had knowledge at all material times

that TCHC had failed to comply with their obligations to class members by not repairing

structural deficiencies in their housing that violated the standards established in the City of

Toronto Municipal Code Chapters 397, 447, 489, 497, 629, 719 and 844, the City of

Toronto Municipal bylaws, the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, Ontario Regulation

217/06 Maintenance Standards, Building Code Act, 1992 Chapter 2 the Fire Protection

and Prevention Act, Ontario Regulation 388/9, and the standards articulated by the City of

Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards Division and the standards articulated in the

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN resolutions concerning the Right

to Adequate Housing that have been ratified by the government and Parliament of Canada.


69. The Plaintiffs further assert that the Defendants have acknowledged the severity of

the deficiencies that need to be repaired in many buildings owned by TCHC. This includes

the acknowledgement in 2007 that there are at least $300 million in emergency repairs

that have not been undertaken by TCHC.


70. The plaintiffs further plead that knowledge of the maintenance problems is indicated

in the City of Toronto Staff Report written by the general manager of shelter, support and

housing administration entitled "Tied in Knots: Unlocking the Potential of Social Housing

Communities in Toronto” dated November 19, 2007 in which is stated:
                                          17



   Toronto Community Housing Corporation reports that its immediate able repairing

   needs are over $300 million (2006). Toronto Community Housing Corporation also

   notes that "failure to make these (capital repairs) investments will result in the

   withdrawal from service of housing units due to the failure to meet an appropriate

   standard for occupancy". [Page 18 paragraph 4]


71. Further, the same report acknowledges that the Toronto Community Housing

Corporation has an “AA Class” credit rating from Standard and Poor and has available to it

a $250 million bond to be used to address capital repairs. [ Page 18, paragraph3].


72. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants had specific knowledge of the

prolonged delays class members experienced when they tried to get TCHC to repair

specific housing problems.


73. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants have wrongfully and negligently chosen not

to borrow money readily available to repair the class members housing. The Plaintiffs

allege that this deliberate decision not to borrow money to maintain the housing is

misfeasance that should attract punitive damages.


74. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants breached the said duty of care when

they failed to ensure that TCHC apartments and housing stock conformed to established

minimum standards for residential housing for prolonged periods of time.


75. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants ought to have reasonably foreseen that harm

to the Plaintiff and Class Members would result from their negligence in failing to ensure
                                          18



that TCHC housing met the minimum residential housing standards set out in the

aforementioned legislation.


76. The Plaintiffs plead that the Defendants’ negligent delay in making housing repairs

has caused mental and physical harm to them and the Class Members.


77. The Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered damages as a result of the Defendants’

misfeasance as alleged herein and claim entitlement to punitive, aggravated and

exemplary damages in the circumstances.




BREACH OF CHARTER RIGHTS: SECTION 15 VIOLATIONS


78. The Plaintiffs allege that the members of the class they represent are persons who are

protected by section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the

Defendants jointly and severally have discriminated against them on the basis of their

status as social housing tenants who are directly housed with a social housing provider.

The Plaintiffs therefore claim a remedy under section 24 of the Charter.


79. As social housing tenants who live in buildings that are owned by TCHC class

members are unable to move from their current apartment except in accordance with the

conditions set out in the SHRA.


80. If they move in any other fashion they will lose their rent supplement. They cannot

apply to live in the private sector apartments TCHC rents for other social housing tenants

and they are ineligible for the rent supplement program that TCHC has offered to other

social housing tenants.
                                            19



81. The Defendants’ actions have infringed on the Plaintiff’s right and that of the Class

Members to be treated with equal dignity.


DIFFERENTIAL BURDENS


82. The Plaintiffs plead that TCHC tenants who live in buildings that are owned and

operated by TCHC are treated differently than TCHC tenants who reside in private sector

housing.


83. The Plaintiffs plead that both class members and TCHC tenants who live in private

sector housing are similarly situated in relationship to TCHC. Their ability to maintain

their housing is dependant upon RGI supplements of TCHC.


84. The Plaintiffs assert that TCHC will not sign a lease with a private sector landlord if

the housing in question violates the statutory standards for rental housing. However,

TCHC continues to rent substandard apartments to Class Members in buildings it owns

and operates.


85. The Plaintiffs allege that TCHC tenants who live in buildings that are owned and

operated by TCHC are treated differently than TCHC tenants who live in private sector

for profit housing.


86. Specifically, TCHC requires that private sector landlords maintain the said rental

housing in accordance with the statutory standards referred to above. However, TCHC

does not maintain the housing they own and control to those same standards. The Plaintiff

alleges that the Defendants place a differential burden on them and discriminate against

TCHC tenants who live in housing that is owned and controlled directly by TCHC.
                                           20



DAMAGES


87. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have been willfully blind to the immediate

mental and physical harm suffered by the class members as a result of their prolonged

delay in repairing their housing.


88. The Defendants have willfully disregarded Class Members’ right to safe and secure

housing that meets the statutory standards established by the Province and the City of

Toronto.


89. TCHC has also violated its own published policy concerning its own obligation to

investigate and resolve maintenance complaints quickly, and their own policy concerning

their obligation to maintain safe and healthful housing for their tenants.


90. The City of Toronto was negligent when they did not issue the notice to the Province

of the systemic failure of TCHC to insure that TCHC housing conformed to provincial

and municipal residential housing requirements.


91. The Plaintiffs assert that the extent of the disrepair constituted evidence that TCHC

was a project in difficulty as set out in s.18 of the SHRA. The Plaintiffs assert that the

City was negligent when it chose not to issue this notice.


92. The Defendants’ persistent willful blindness to the systemic failings of TCHC to

maintain the minimum statutory standards for safe and acceptable housing, and to the

harm it has caused Class Members as vulnerable persons, should attract exemplary

damages.
                                              21



    LEGISLATION


    93. The Plaintiffs plead and rely upon the provisions of sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian

    Charter of Rights and Freedoms; the Class Proceedings Act 1992, S.O. 1992, c.6; City of

    Toronto Municipal Code including the Property Standards set out in Chapters 497 and

    629, the standards articulated by the City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards

    Division, standards established by City of Toronto municipal bylaws, the Residential

    Tenancies Act. 2006 and Ontario Regulation 217/06 Maintenance Standards, the Fire

    Protection and Prevention Act and Ontario Regulation 388/97 and the Building Code Act

    1992, SO 1992 Chapter 2 and on the standards articulated in the UN Universal Declaration

    of Human Rights and the UN resolutions concerning the Right to Adequate Housing that

    have been ratified by the Government and Parliament of Canada.


    94. The Plaintiffs allege that they can adequately represent the common issues of the

    members of the class and that there is no conflict between their individual issues and the

    common issues of the class.


    95. The Plaintiffs propose that this action be tried in the City of Toronto, in the Province

    of Ontario.




Dated: April ___, 2008                ROACH, SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES
                                      Barristers & Solicitors
                                      688 St. Clair Avenue West
                                      Toronto, Ontario M6C 1B1
                                      Tel: (416) 657-1465
                                      Fax: (416) 657-1511

                                      Sarah Shartal Levinthal LSUC #50329D
                                      Charles C. Roach LSUC #09862V
         22



Kikélola Roach LSUC # 44215D

Solicitors for the Plaintiffs

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:6
posted:2/16/2011
language:English
pages:22