‘acuauty YOUR LANDLORD SHOULD HAVE.
CALLED US SOONER!’

Queries answered

on new tenant act

By ALD. HARRY RANKIN

Question: When did the new
Act become law?

Answer: April 6, 1970.

Question: Who is covered by
the new Act?

Answer: The new Act applies
to anyone renting “‘residential
premises’’, including apart-

~ ments, houses, lodging rooms,

residences, apartment hotels
(even if one does not eat on the
premises), whether the tenancy
agreement is for a week, a
month, ora year.
Question: What is a
agreement’’?
Answer: It is ‘“‘an agreement
between a tenant and a landlord
for possession of a residential
premises, whether written, or
oral, or implied, where the rent
payable does not exceed five
hundred dollars per month.
Question: Does the new Act in
any way limit the terms of
tenancy agreements?
Answer: Yes. Any terms of
any tenancy agreement that
contradict any terms of the new

Act are illegal and invalid (e.g. ©

agreements requiring tenants to
give 40 days notice if they wish to
vacate, etc.)

Question: What does the new
Act say about rents?

Answer: Specifically, it says
that ‘‘no tenancy agreement
shall provide for an increase in
rent during the first year of a
tenancy agreement.’ The
attorney general’s department
has confirmed that the payment
of a new rent constitutes a new
agreement. Therefore, any new
rate of rent paid is ‘‘good”’ for at
least a year. Rents can only go
up once in any one year period.

The new Act also provides that
the landlord must give three
months notice in writing before
any rent increase is valid.

Further, the new Act provides
that a tenant who fails to give
notice upon vacating is not liable
for the extra month’s rent if the
landlord is able to re-rent the
apartment to another tenant
without loss of income.

Question; What is the earliest

date that rents can be
increased?
Answer: August 1, 1970. It.

could be later, depending on
when the tenant received his last
increase in rent.

Question: Does the new Act

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—ERIDAY. JUNE 12,.1970—Page 2 oo) iy in

“tenancy

require the landlord to justify
any increase in rent?

Answer: No.

Question: What about security
deposits?

Answer: -All new security

deposits are outlawed, except in
Vancouver where a $25 limi-
tation was imposed by City
Council. When a tenant vacates
the security deposit must be paid
back in full within 15 days with
interest, unless the landlord has
secured a court order for some
deduction.
Question: What‘about needed
repairs to rented premises?
Answer: A tenant may make a
summary application to a judge
of the Small Claims Division of
the Provincial Court, and after
a hearing the Judge can order
the landlord to carry out the
needed repairs.
Question: Can a
enter rented premises?
Answer: The landlord must
give 24 hours written notice and
can then enter only between 8:00
a.m. and 9:00 p.m.

landlord

Question: Can a landlord
change the lock on_ rented
premises? —
Answer: No.

Question: Can a landlord hire
a bailiff at the tenant’s expense
to seize a tenant's belongings

for overdue rent? “
Answer: No. This is now
illegal.

Question: Can a landlord evict
a tenant?

Answer: A landlord must give
a tenant at least one month's
notice in writing. If the tenant
does not vacate, the landlord
must apply to a judge for an
order granting him possession.
A landlord cannot physically
force a tenant out, cannot utilize
the police, cannot intimidate
with a bailiff, cannot change the
locks or turn off the heat or
water. The landlord must
launch a court action for
possession and have it upheld by
a judge.

If the judge believes the land-
lord is trying to evict a tenant
because the tenant was process-
ing a legitimate grievance con-
cerning violation by the landlord
of any municipal by-law relating
to health or safety, then the
judge may rule that the notice to
quit is invalid.

isin

ea he — &

Gia Se RS

IroA

Tenants win big victory

in anti-eviction fight

A decision of historic im
portance for tenants was made
June 3 by Judge Levy in the
Small Claims Division of the
Provincial Court when he
refused to grant an eviction
order sought by a landlord
against a tenant. :

This case was the first one
heard under the new Landlord &
Tenant Act in British Columbia,
and the first time in Canda that
the principle of the landlord’s
arbitrary right to eviction has
been quashed.

The order was sought by
Rosenthal Holdings against
Lewis Williams, president of the
Downtown Tenant Association,
an affiliate of the Vancouver
Tenants Council. Under Section
61 (b) of the new Landlord &
Tenant Act a judge MAY refuse
an eviction if he feels that the
notice to quit was given because
of the tenant’s attempt to
enforce or secure his legal
rights.

Williams contended that his
notice to quit arose as a result of
a number of actions he took with
regard to an invalid notice of a
rent increase, allegedly given
himself and tenants at the
Orwell Hotel.

These actions included a direct
complaint to the landlord (who
told him to leave if he didn’t like
it), talks with other tenants
about the illegality of the rent
increase notice, consultation
with the Vancouver Tenants
Council Secretary Bruce Yorke,
and the calling of a meeting to
form an organization of tenants
in the Orwell Hotel.

In his ruling Judge Levy stated
that he was satisfied that the
real reason for the notice to quit
was Williams” resistance to the
improper rent increase notice (it
was the third within a year).

The Judge further stated that
he was satisfied that Williams
was attempting to secure his
legal rights.

Moreover he stated that he
‘“‘was quite certain that the rent
notices (2) were improper.’ The
first notice did not specify the
amont of the increase and the
second one did not state the
rental period (a week, a month,

.a year).

The Vancouver’ Tenants
Council feels that Judge Levy’s
decision reinforces its often
stated opinion that the new Land-
lord & Tenant Act could afford
some protection to tenants
against arbitrary evictions.

We feel certain that tenants
who have been given illegal
notices of rent increases (and
there are thousands in the city)
will now refuse to pay them
and/or demand their return. The
fear of an eviction resulting
from such actions has now been
eliminated as a result of the
Judge's ruling in the Williams
case.

At the Orwell Hotel. where
Williams resides, some fifty
tenants were involved, in the
improper notice of a _ rent
increase. The Vancouver,

Tenants Council said it will

pe

inform them of Judge ae
statement that the rent increase
notice was improper and urge
that they take steps to recover
the-extra monies extracted from
them.

“We will advise the tenants,
both individually and _ collec-
tively, to ask the landlord to
refund the increases. If the
landlord does not do so within a
reasonable length of time, we
will advise the tenants to launch
suits in the Small Claims Divi-
sion to recover the monies,’ said
Bruce Yorke secretary of the
Vancouver Tenants Council.

“In his reasons for judgment
Judge Levy stated that, “I know
of no provision as yet that
authorizes attempts to form a
collective agreement between
tenants and a landlord as consti-

“‘floater’’.

court if they don’t comply.

‘hen the youthful offender back in the Hinesy 3 30’s got
arrested for protesting his hunger and landed before
some gouty ‘“‘beak,’’ the court quite frequently handed him a

That is, (or was), three months out at Oakalla (ora
similar rest home) if you’re not out of town in 24-hours.
“Floaters’’ in those piping times were much more prolific than
present day anti-labor injunctions, and much less messy.
Afterall it is no joke for the court to be summarily rooted
out of bed at some ungodly hour of the night to oblige with an
exparte injunction to any Skinem & Fleecem corporation so~
that they can get their striking crews back on the job bright
and early in the morning — and to hold them in contempt of

The popular floater was a neat and clean cut operation. It

tuting action that could be
construed as attempting 10
secure or enforce one’s legal
rights.

Although the defense did not
make this point the specific issue
in the case, the Judge in finding
that Williams was attempting to
secure his legal rights, did not
rule the contrary, namely that
collective activity does not
constitute an attempt to secure ~
or enforce one’s legal rights.
This matter is still an open”
question in a legal sense.

“However, in our non-legal
opinion, Williams’ activity
included attempts to organize

‘tenants and to seek a collective

solution to a collective problem,
and it is clear that this kind of
activity can help to secure bene-
ficial results for tenants.’

when the Trudeau-Benson

got rid of the hungry offender pronto, which was the prime
concern of the class for whom the wheels of Justice grind. The
floater just floated on, and kept on floating, like the famed
Micawber, hoping something better would turn up.

The analogy may appear to some .40-years later at first
glance to be a bit far-fetched. But pause and ponder a moment ©
the latest Trudeau-Benson panacea for what ails Canada econo-
mically — the floating dollar. This is by far and away the best
and biggest floater we’ve had since Social Credit started
printing its own script dollar back in Sonny Alberta during the
peak boom of floaters.

With this floating dollar the Trudeau government have
shattered all their own arguments supporting their anti-infla-
tionary binge as well as the arguments of corporate monopoly
chiefs, banks, bosses, and politicians of all sorts. That of
“holding down wages so that Canada’s produce can become
competitive in world markets,’ the avoidance of “‘pricing
ourselves out of these matters,”’ etc., etc., and so forth.

Even the devil himself could not let out a more ear-
splitting screech of protest had some attendant handed him a
swig of holy water than finance minister WAC gave out with
“floating dollar’ landed in his _
plugged-in-with-god fiscal computer. ‘‘A bad day: for B.C.,”
groaned WAC.

No doubt Swiss bankers, international money sgeeare the
wizards of Wall Street and all such, stand to make a neat pile
with Canada’s new floating dollar. The stiff-necked bosses at
the bargaining table will use the floater to become more stiff in
their attempts to break down trade union standards while the
chances are that what goes into the housewife’s shopping bag
will cost more— not less. Care to take a bet on it?

Mr. Benson comitted a couple of puffs on his favourite pipe
to explain that should his floating dollar float too fast or too
far, prompt provisions will be taken for re-anchoring it to the
good old Yankee buck, but in the gamble, in which inter-
national speculators and money grubbers per se won't be
sitting it out, the Canadian people, and first and foremost the
working class are the ones who are going to be caught in the
backwash of the floating dollar.

Canada’s present jobless some 550,000 or well onto 6.10
percent of the total work force, can readily ‘float’ to twice the
number. now that it is government policy to further “save” the

1 OETQ 4 Gonew holy ase

economy — by strangling it. But. says floater Benson, “thatisa
risk we have got to face.’ Note the “we”! :
ce ite iO OE a Sn Sah, scarab HE So