Comments on: Gordon Nelson Target 84-Year-Old Man Battling Cancer and Pregnant Woman in Mass Renoviction http://seafieldapartments.com/gordon-nelson-target-84-year-old-man-battling-cancer-and-pregnant-woman-in-mass-renoviction/1574 Thu, 03 May 2012 19:46:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Derek Richer http://seafieldapartments.com/gordon-nelson-target-84-year-old-man-battling-cancer-and-pregnant-woman-in-mass-renoviction/1574/comment-page-1#comment-831 Derek Richer Wed, 08 Dec 2010 08:27:32 +0000 http://seafieldapartments.com/?p=1574#comment-831 Actions speak louder than words. While Gordon and Nelson claim that the Seafield is in dire need of extensive renovations, their past conduct indicates the contrary. Substantial evidence proves that GNI's real mission is to extinguish all tenancy agreements so they can charge exhorbitant rents. Why would GNI repeatedly try to evict tenants for "cause," and especially target individuals in the building who are vocal in their defence? Why would GNI increase the laundry fees from $1.50 a load to $4.00? Why would GNI file a claim with the RTB for rent increases upwards of 73 percent? Why would GNI impose all sorts of puerile pranks on the tenants to make their daily lives uncomfortable in the building (removing the laundry machines, ripping up the carpets, erecting a fence around the building, and removing all the vegetation? Why would they suddenly decide to evict a tenant to accommodate a resident manager when there was an empty and equivalent sized suite in the building? Why would they even want a resident manager in the building if they were planning to revisit the renoviction option? All such actions are engineered to push out the present tenants, pure and simple. Yet GNI seem to be too mired in their subjective pose to see beyond the spell of filthy lucre. Also, their outrageous spouting about tenants' incomes or lifestyles is irrelevant to the argument about the right of tenants to preserve their rights and homes. Under the law, no discrimination is made in terms of income or capital. A billionaire would have just as much right to retain his tenancy as an employee of a coffee shop. As for the upcoming action in the RTB, GNI’s past actions will come back to haunt them. Section 49(6)(b) of the Residential Tenancy Act states: “A landlord may end a tenancy in respect of a rental unit if the landlord has all the necessary permits and approvals required by law, and intends in good faith, to … renovate or repair the rental unit in a manner that requires the rental unit to be vacant” Could repeated attempts to evict tenants, imposing 73 percent rent increases, and raising laundry fees to $4.00 a load be construed as supporting evidence for GNI’s good faith to renovate the building in a manner which requires each unit to be empty? HARDLY. Then we have the landmark case of Berry and Klooet v. British Columbia, 2007, (22) where the Supreme Court of BC stated that “the purpose of (49(6)(b)) is not to give landlords a means for evicting tenants; rather, it is to ensure that landlords are able carry out renovations” How will GNI explain their rampant and varied quest to evict all tenants in the Seafield building? Considering the stunning contradictions and weaknesses in the GNI case, the Seafielders will prevail again. Right is might. Actions speak louder than words. While Gordon and Nelson claim that the Seafield is in dire need of extensive renovations, their past conduct indicates the contrary. Substantial evidence proves that GNI’s real mission is to extinguish all tenancy agreements so they can charge exhorbitant rents.

Why would GNI repeatedly try to evict tenants for “cause,” and especially target individuals in the building who are vocal in their defence? Why would GNI increase the laundry fees from $1.50 a load to $4.00? Why would GNI file a claim with the RTB for rent increases upwards of 73 percent? Why would GNI impose all sorts of puerile pranks on the tenants to make their daily lives uncomfortable in the building (removing the laundry machines, ripping up the carpets, erecting a fence around the building, and removing all the vegetation? Why would they suddenly decide to evict a tenant to accommodate a resident manager when there was an empty and equivalent sized suite in the building? Why would they even want a resident manager in the building if they were planning to revisit the renoviction option?

All such actions are engineered to push out the present tenants, pure and simple. Yet GNI seem to be too mired in their subjective pose to see beyond the spell of filthy lucre.

Also, their outrageous spouting about tenants’ incomes or lifestyles is irrelevant to the argument about the right of tenants to preserve their rights and homes. Under the law, no discrimination is made in terms of income or capital. A billionaire would have just as much right to retain his tenancy as an employee of a coffee shop.

As for the upcoming action in the RTB, GNI’s past actions will come back to haunt them. Section 49(6)(b) of the Residential Tenancy Act states:

“A landlord may end a tenancy in respect of a rental unit if the landlord has all the necessary permits and approvals required by law, and intends in good faith, to … renovate or repair the rental unit in a manner that requires the rental unit to be vacant”

Could repeated attempts to evict tenants, imposing 73 percent rent increases, and raising laundry fees to $4.00 a load be construed as supporting evidence for GNI’s good faith to renovate the building in a manner which requires each unit to be empty? HARDLY.

Then we have the landmark case of Berry and Klooet v. British Columbia, 2007, (22) where the Supreme Court of BC stated that “the purpose of (49(6)(b)) is not to give landlords a means for evicting tenants; rather, it is to ensure that landlords are able carry out renovations”

How will GNI explain their rampant and varied quest to evict all tenants in the Seafield building?

Considering the stunning contradictions and weaknesses in the GNI case, the Seafielders will prevail again. Right is might.

]]>